People v. Scharet
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Scharet
2026 NY Slip Op 04700
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
STEPHANIE E. SCHARET, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Decided on July 24, 2026
542 KA 25-00780
Present: Whalen, P.J., Curran, Montour, Greenwood, And Nowak, JJ.
HAYDEN M. DADD, CONFLICT DEFENDER, GENESEO (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ASHLEY J. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (AMANDA B. NEWTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Jennifer M. Noto, J.), rendered February 27, 2025. The judgment convicted defendant upon her plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
[*1]It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]). Defendant contends that she did not validly waive her right to appeal because County Court did not conduct the requisite colloquy until after it had already accepted her plea. We reject that contention inasmuch as the record establishes that the court informed defendant, before she entered her plea, that the waiver would be a condition of the plea (see People v Thomas, 237 AD3d 1557, 1557-1558 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1059 [2025]). Further, the record establishes that the court assured itself "prior to the completion of the plea proceeding
. . . that defendant adequately understood the right that [she] was forgoing" (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]; see Thomas, 237 AD3d at 1557-1558). The court engaged defendant in an extensive oral colloquy, and defendant also signed a written waiver of the right to appeal that closely paralleled the model colloquy (see generally People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 567 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]).
Contrary to defendant's further contention with respect to the waiver, the record establishes that she received consideration in exchange for the waiver (see People v Jackson, 247 AD3d 1625, 1626-1627 [4th Dept 2026]; People v Allen, 174 AD3d 1456, 1456 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 978 [2019]). We reject defendant's remaining challenges to the waiver and conclude that the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to appeal (see Jackson, 247 AD3d at 1626; see generally Thomas, 34 NY3d at 559-564). The valid waiver encompasses defendant's further challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Wright, 246 AD3d 1383, 1383-1384 [4th Dept 2026]).
Entered: July 24, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Scharet (People v. Scharet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.