The New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of Khalil Burney for strangulation in the second degree. This decision, made on June 26, 2026, affects Burney, who pleaded guilty to the charge, and highlights important issues regarding the waiver of appeal rights.
Burney's case began when he was charged with strangulation under New York Penal Law § 121.12. After entering a guilty plea, he was convicted and sentenced by the Supreme Court of Erie County on May 10, 2023. The case has drawn attention not only for the nature of the crime but also for the legal implications surrounding the defendant's appeal rights.
The parties involved in the case include the People of the State of New York, represented by District Attorney Michael J. Keane and Harmony A. Healy, and Khalil Burney, who was represented by Kristin E. Markarian from the Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc. Following his conviction, Burney sought to appeal the judgment, raising concerns about the validity of his waiver of the right to appeal.
The dispute arose primarily over the waiver of appeal rights that Burney signed. The written waiver form incorrectly indicated that it was an absolute bar to any direct appeal, which is not permissible under New York law. The court noted that the waiver must clearly inform the defendant of the rights being waived. The Appellate Division found that the waiver was invalid due to this misrepresentation.
The court stated, "the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid" and highlighted that the totality of the circumstances did not demonstrate that Burney understood the nature of the appellate rights being waived. This ruling aligns with previous cases, such as People v. Zukic and People v. Thomas, which emphasize the necessity for clear communication regarding appeal rights during the plea process.
Despite the invalidation of the waiver, the court affirmed the sentence imposed on Burney. It concluded that the sentence for strangulation in the second degree was not unduly harsh or severe. This aspect of the ruling underscores that even if a waiver is invalid, the court can still uphold the underlying conviction and sentence if they are deemed appropriate.
The ruling has significant implications for defendants in similar situations. It reinforces the importance of clear communication regarding appeal rights during plea deals. Defendants must be fully informed about their rights to ensure that any waivers they sign are valid and enforceable.
Looking forward, this decision may influence how plea agreements are structured and how courts handle waivers of appeal rights. Legal representatives may need to be more diligent in explaining these rights to their clients to avoid similar issues in the future.
As for Burney, while the court has affirmed his conviction, he may still have options for further legal action. The court's decision does not preclude him from seeking other forms of relief or exploring additional legal avenues. However, details regarding potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.