The People of the State of New York v. Jalen Doctor
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law — validity of appeal waivers and discretionary vacatur of surcharges and fees
Accepted defendant’s guilty plea to first-degree rape, found his appeal waived, and imposed 7 years’ imprisonment and 10 years’ postrelease supervision (PRS) plus mandatory surcharge and fees.
The appellate court invalidated the appeal waiver and vacated the surcharge and fees; the conviction and prison/PRS terms were otherwise affirmed.
The appeal-waiver colloquy failed to explain that appellate rights are separate from those forfeited by a guilty plea, implied appeals are only from trials, and did not clarify that some issues are nonwaivable; a written waiver could not cure the deficient oral colloquy. Surcharges and fees were vacated in the interest of justice, without opposition from the People.
Background
Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree rape in Supreme Court, New York County, and received a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment plus 10 years’ postrelease supervision (PRS), along with a mandatory surcharge and fees. The court took an appeal waiver, but its explanation suggested appeals occur only after trial and did not distinguish appellate rights from those forfeited by a guilty plea. Defendant, who had no prior convictions, executed a detailed written waiver.
Lower Court Decision
Judgment rendered September 3, 2020, convicting defendant upon his guilty plea and imposing 7 years’ imprisonment, 10 years’ PRS, and mandatory surcharge and fees, with an appeal waiver taken at the plea.
Appellate Division Reversal
Unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to vacate the surcharge and fees; otherwise affirmed. The court held the appeal waiver invalid because the oral colloquy did not explain that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from rights forfeited by a guilty plea, suggested that appeals follow only trial convictions, and failed to state that some issues are nonwaivable. The written waiver did not cure the deficient colloquy. The court declined to reduce the sentence but vacated the surcharge and fees pursuant to its interest-of-justice authority, noting the People did not oppose.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms First Department standards requiring an on-the-record explanation that the right to appeal is separate and survives a guilty plea and that some issues are nonwaivable; a written waiver alone is insufficient. Also reflects the court’s continuing use of interest-of-justice powers to vacate surcharges and fees in appropriate criminal cases, even while affirming the conviction and sentence.
An appeal waiver must be clearly explained on the record as separate from rights forfeited by a guilty plea; a written waiver cannot cure a deficient colloquy. The First Department may vacate surcharges and fees in the interest of justice while otherwise affirming the judgment.