People v Randall

Annotate this Case
People v Randall 2017 NY Slip Op 05011 Decided on June 16, 2017 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 16, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND NEMOYER, JJ.
840 KA 14-02283

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

FABIAN RANDALL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANE I. YOON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O'BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Victoria M. Argento, J.), rendered October 2, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [4]). Preliminarily, we note that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is not valid. The perfunctory inquiry made by County Court during the plea colloquy was not sufficient "to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice" (People v Beaver, 128 AD3d 1493, 1494 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Moreover, although the record includes a signed written waiver of the right to appeal, there was no "attempt by the court to ascertain on the record an acknowledgment from defendant that he had, in fact, signed the waiver or that, if he had, he was aware of its contents" and understood them (People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283; see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 265; cf. People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1095-1096). We nevertheless conclude that defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence is without merit.

Entered: June 16, 2017

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.