Opinion
04-28-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Paul J. BLARR, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
Evan Lumley, Buffalo, for Defendant–Appellant. John J. Flynn, District Attorney, Buffalo (Julie Bender Fiske of Counsel), for Respondent.
Evan Lumley, Buffalo, for Defendant–Appellant.
John J. Flynn, District Attorney, Buffalo (Julie Bender Fiske of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of one count of scheme to defraud in the first degree ( Penal Law § 190.65[1][a] ) and 10 counts of grand larceny in the third degree (§ 155.35[1] ). In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of scheme to defraud in the first degree (§ 190.65[1][a] ), and one count each of grand larceny in the third degree (§ 155.35[1] ) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30[1] ). With respect to both appeals, the record establishes that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v. Anderson, 144 A.D.3d 1614, 1614, 40 N.Y.S.3d 315, lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 1181, 52 N.Y.S.3d 708, 75 N.E.3d 100 ; People v. Carney, 129 A.D.3d 1511, 1511, 10 N.Y.S.3d 377, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 994, 38 N.Y.S.3d 104, 59 N.E.3d 1216 ). The valid waivers of the right to appeal with respect to both the conviction and sentence encompass defendant's challenges to the severity of the sentences (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 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 ; cf. People v. Maracle, 19 N.Y.3d 925, 928, 950 N.Y.S.2d 498, 973 N.E.2d 1272 ).
Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel with respect to both appeals. To the extent that defendant's contention survives his guilty pleas and waivers of the right to appeal (see People v. Collins, 129 A.D.3d 1676, 1676–1677, 12 N.Y.S.3d 477, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1038, 22 N.Y.S.3d 168, 43 N.E.3d 378 ), it is without merit. We conclude on the record before us that defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v. Davis, 99 A.D.3d 1228, 1229, 951 N.Y.S.2d 808, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1010, 960 N.Y.S.2d 353, 984 N.E.2d 328 ; see generally People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.