People v. Moton

Opinion

People v Moton

2026 NY Slip Op 04613

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

JENNIFER MOTON, ALSO KNOWN AS JENNIFER M. MOTON, ALSO KNOWN AS B, ALSO KNOWN AS MISS B, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

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

Decided on July 24, 2026

405 KA 23-02077

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

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ERIN A. TRESMOND OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KEVIN T. FINNELL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Melissa Lightcap Cianfrini, J.), rendered May 5, 2023. The judgment convicted defendant upon her plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).

[*1]

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that she did not validly waive her right to appeal and that her sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid (see People v Markle, 147 AD3d 1527, 1527 [4th Dept 2017]; People v Collins, 129 AD3d 1676, 1676 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1038 [2015]; People v Meiner, 20 AD3d 778, 778 n [3d Dept 2005]; see also People v Wallace, 153 AD3d 1632, 1633 [4th Dept 2017]), and therefore does not preclude our review of her challenge to the severity of her sentence (see People v Hemphill, 192 AD3d 1479, 1480 [4th Dept 2021]; People v Alls, 187 AD3d 1515, 1515 [4th Dept 2020]; People v Love, 181 AD3d 1193, 1193 [4th Dept 2020]), we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Finally, we note that the certificate of disposition incorrectly recites that under counts 2 and 4 of the indictment defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]), and it must be amended to reflect that under those counts she was convicted of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]; see generally People v Thurston, 208 AD3d 1629, 1630 [4th Dept 2022]).

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court