People v. King

2021 NY Slip Op 06283, 199 A.D.3d 1396, 154 N.Y.S.3d 519

Opinion

People v King (2021 NY Slip Op 06283)

People v King

2021 NY Slip Op 06283

Decided on November 12, 2021

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 November 12, 2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

938 KA 17-00115

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

v

TYRONE KING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BENJAMIN L. NELSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas E. Moran, J.), rendered January 9, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), strangulation in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts).

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 two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]), one count of strangulation in the second degree (§ 121.12), and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1], [3]). As defendant contends and the People correctly concede, defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal (see People v Bisono, 36 NY3d 1013, 1017-1018 [2020]; People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 565-566 [2019], cert denied — US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]; People v Johnson, 192 AD3d 1494, 1495 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 965 [2021]). Although we are thus not precluded from reviewing defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence (see Johnson, 192 AD3d at 1495), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: November 12, 2021

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court