Opinion
2014-07-11
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark A. LORENZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J.), rendered September 22, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood (Lyle T. Hajdu of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jodi A. Danzig of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J.), rendered September 22, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood (Lyle T. Hajdu of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jodi A. Danzig of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06[1] ). We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because “no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant's right to appeal his conviction” that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence ( People v. Pimentel, 108 A.D.3d 861, 862, 969 N.Y.S.2d 574,lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1076, 974 N.Y.S.2d 325, 997 N.E.2d 150;see People v. Maracle, 19 N.Y.3d 925, 928, 950 N.Y.S.2d 498, 973 N.E.2d 1272). We nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, and WHALEN, JJ., concur.