People v. Curtis

Opinion

People v Curtis

2026 NY Slip Op 04618

July 24, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

AVION CURTIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on July 24, 2026

412 KA 24-00890

Present: Lindley, J.P., Curran, Ogden, Nowak, And Delconte, JJ.

JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TONYA PLANK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BRIAN P. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MARTIN P. MCCARTHY, II, OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered May 29, 2024. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

[*1]

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03 [3]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based on his postplea conduct and that the enhanced sentence is unduly harsh and severe. We affirm.

Initially, while defendant's contention that the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence would survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v O'Brien, 98 AD3d 1264, 1264 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1063 [2013]), that contention " 'is not preserved for our review because defendant did not object to the enhanced sentence, nor did he move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction' " (People v Roberto, 224 AD3d 1367, 1368 [4th Dept 2024]; see People v Wilson, 232 AD3d 1230, 1231 [4th Dept 2024]; People v Bishop, 198 AD3d 1381, 1382 [4th Dept 2021]).

Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid or otherwise does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the enhanced sentence (see generally People v Campbell, 246 AD3d 1381, 1381 [4th Dept 2026], lv denied 45 NY3d 969 [2026]; People v DeAngelis, 227 AD3d 1475, 1475-1476

[4th Dept 2024]), we nevertheless conclude that the enhanced sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court