Summary
This is a 2025 decision by the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, affirming a Kings County Supreme Court sentence imposed after the defendant pleaded guilty. The court held that the defendant's claim of an excessive sentence was precluded by a valid, knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal, which was included as a condition of his plea bargain. The opinion confirms that the written waiver adequately supplemented the oral colloquy and provided material benefit to the defendant.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid and precludes appellate review of the sentence.
- Whether the sentence imposed was excessive.
Holdings
- The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence was excessive, and the sentence is affirmed.
Key quotations
“Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the totality of the circumstances, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248).”
“Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant "received no material benefit from his appeal waiver" or that the appeal waiver "was a gratuitous, after‑the‑fact additional demand asserted after the bargain had already been struck" (People v. Sutton, 184 AD3d 236, 245; see People v. Sobers, 235 AD3d 908, 909).”
Factual background
Robert Morao pleaded guilty to a criminal charge and, as part of his plea bargain, knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced by the Supreme Court, Kings County on September 21, 2022, and later appealed the sentence as excessive.
Procedural history
The defendant pleaded guilty, entered a plea bargain that included a waiver of his right to appeal, was sentenced by the Supreme Court, Kings County, and subsequently appealed the sentence as excessive.