Opinion
318 KA 15–00204
03-16-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard LIVINGSTON, Defendant–Appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (JOHN J. GILSENAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. RICHARD LIVINGSTON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT PRO SE. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (JOHN J. GILSENAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
RICHARD LIVINGSTON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT PRO SE.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, 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 third degree ( Penal Law § 220.16[1] ). Preliminarily, we agree with defendant that he did not validly waive his right to appeal (see People v. Sampson, 149 A.D.3d 1486, 1486–1487, 52 N.Y.S.3d 767 [4th Dept. 2017] ; People v. Mason, 144 A.D.3d 1589, 1589, 40 N.Y.S.3d 694 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1186, 52 N.Y.S.3d 712, 75 N.E.3d 104 [2017] ). Nevertheless, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have considered the contentions in defendant's pro se supplemental brief and conclude that none warrants reversal or modification of the judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.