WALKER, RAMONE D., PEOPLE v

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: November 15, 2013
• Docket: KA 12-01096
• Status: Published

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1184 KA 12-01096 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RAMONE WALKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

ROBERT M. PUSATERI, CONFLICT DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (EDWARD P. PERLMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), rendered January 4, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]). The waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Thousand, 96 AD3d 1439, 1439-1440, lv denied 19 NY3d 1002) and, moreover, that challenge is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Nelson, 105 AD3d 1389, 1390, lv denied 21 NY3d 1044). The waiver of the right to appeal also encompasses defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see generally People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: November 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court