Opinion
91 KA 15–01260
02-09-2018
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARGARET A. CIEPRISZ OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARGARET A. CIEPRISZ OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree ( Penal Law § 220.18[1] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see id. at 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 [1998] ; cf. People v. Maracle, 19 N.Y.3d 925, 928, 950 N.Y.S.2d 498, 973 N.E.2d 1272 [2012] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.