Opinion
2019–06304, 2019–06307, 2021–05729 Ind. Nos. 54/17, 142/18, 143/18
05-04-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Samantha VANTASSELL, appellant.
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent on Indictment No. 54/17. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Andrew Amend and Margaret A. Cieprisz of counsel), for respondent on Indictment Nos. 142/18 and 143/18.
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent on Indictment No. 54/17.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Andrew Amend and Margaret A. Cieprisz of counsel), for respondent on Indictment Nos. 142/18 and 143/18.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, LARA J. GENOVESI, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Michael G. Hayes, J.), rendered May 16, 2019, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and attempted conspiracy in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, under Indictment No. 142/18, and imposing sentence, (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered May 16, 2019, convicting her of making a terroristic threat, upon her plea of guilty, under Indictment No. 143/18, and imposing sentence, and (3) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered May 16, 2019, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court under Indictment No. 54/17, upon a finding that she violated a condition thereof, upon her admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon her previous conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
ORDERED that the judgments and the amended judgment are affirmed.
As regards the two judgments, rendered under Indictment Nos. 142/18 and 143/18, the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to appeal (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 254, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). The totality of the circumstances, including the written appeal waiver and the defendant's experience with the criminal justice system, reveals that the defendant understood the nature of the appellate rights being waived (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 559, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ). The defendant's valid waiver of her right to appeal precludes appellate review of her contention that the sentences imposed under Indictment Nos. 142/18 and 143/18 were excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ).
As regards the amended judgment, rendered under Indictment No. 54/17, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of the sentence of probation imposed under Indictment No. 54/17 was not excessive (see People v. Williams, 164 A.D.3d 845, 846, 79 N.Y.S.3d 536 ; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, GENOVESI and FORD, JJ., concur.