Opinion
02-03-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ricky D. PEGLOW, II, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
Charles A. Marangola, Moravia, for defendant-appellant. Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Christopher T. Valdina of Counsel), for respondent.
Charles A. Marangola, Moravia, for defendant-appellant.
Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Christopher T. Valdina of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1] ). In appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon the same plea of guilty, of falsifying business records in the first degree (§ 175.10). With respect to appeal No. 1, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v. Grimes, 53 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 860 N.Y.S.2d 723, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 789, 866 N.Y.S.2d 615, 896 N.E.2d 101 ) and, in any event, defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review by failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Jackson, 50 A.D.3d 1615, 1615–1616, 856 N.Y.S.2d 432, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 960, 863 N.Y.S.2d 144, 893 N.E.2d 450 ).Contrary to defendant's further contention in both appeals, the sentence is not illegal. Furthermore, his valid waiver of the right to appeal with respect to both the conviction and sentence encompasses his contention in both appeals that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; cf. People v. Maracle, 19 N.Y.3d 925, 928, 950 N.Y.S.2d 498, 973 N.E.2d 1272 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, CURRAN, and TROUTMAN, JJ., concur.