People v. HarrisPeople v. Harris
The defendant‘s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The record does not demonstrate that the defendant “grasped the concept of the appeal waiver and the nature of the right he was forgoing” (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; see People v Springer, 109 AD3d 557 [2013]; People v Johnson, 109 AD3d 489 [2013]; People v Collins, 104 AD3d 785 [2013]). Notwithstanding the defendant‘s execution of the written waiver form, it cannot be said that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Elmer, 19 NY3d 501, 510 [2012]; People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d at 267; People v Singleton, 129 AD3d 748 [2015]; People v Johnson, 113 AD3d 635 [2014]; People v Springer, 109 AD3d at 557-558; People v Vasquez, 101 AD3d 1054, 1055 [2012]).
Although the defendant‘s claim that the County Court erred in imposing a sentence greater than what had been promised in the original plea agreement would survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Bracy, 131 AD3d 538, 539 [2015]; People v Youmans, 106 AD3d 1036 [2013]; People v Arrington, 94 AD3d 903 [2012]), the defendant is, in any event, not entitled to relief on this claim. The defendant
The defendant‘s remaining contention is without merit.
Chambers, J.P., Dickerson, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.