People v. Solomon

178 A.D.3d 966

112 N.Y.S.3d 519 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Edward King SOLOMON, Appellant.

2017–00598

Ind. No. 869–16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—October 10, 2019

December 18, 2019

Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (John B. Collins, J.), rendered November 30, 2016, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Keene, 160 A.D.3d 897, 898, 71 N.Y.S.3d 895 ; People v. Solizgalvez, 159 A.D.3d 838, 69 N.Y.S.3d 826 ; People v. Weber, 153 A.D.3d 946, 58 N.Y.S.3d 868 ). The Supreme Court's colloquy at the plea allocution failed to sufficiently advise the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it (see People v. Himonitis, 174 A.D.3d 738, 102 N.Y.S.3d 445 ).

The defendant's contention that he was entitled to a more lenient sentence because of a purported cooperation agreement, which does not appear on the record of the plea allocution, is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Saxon, 28 A.D.3d 330, 330–331, 813 N.Y.S.2d 417 ). In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v. Arellano, 281 A.D.2d 553, 721 N.Y.S.2d 811 ).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RIVERA, BALKIN and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.