Opinion
02-02-2024
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willie THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DREW R. DUBRIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIE THOMAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas E. Moran, J.), rendered February 18, 2020. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of conspiracy in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DREW R. DUBRIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIE THOMAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, BANNISTER, OGDEN, AND DELCONTE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of conspiracy in the second de- gree (Penal Law § 105.15) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). As defendant contends and the People correctly concede, defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is invalid inasmuch as both the signed written waiver of the right to appeal and the oral waiver colloquy mischaracterized the nature of the right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 564-566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied — U.S.—, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]; People v. Jones, 186 A.D.3d 1069, 1070, 127 N.Y.S.3d 361 [4th Dept. 2020]). Nevertheless, contrary to defendant’s contentions in his main and pro se supplemental briefs, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have considered the remaining contentions in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and conclude that none warrants modification or reversal of the judgment.