

People v Garcia (2017 NY Slip Op 07826)





People v Garcia


2017 NY Slip Op 07826


Decided on November 9, 2017


Appellate Division, Fourth Department


Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.


This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.



Decided on November 9, 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.


1178 KA 16-01551

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
vLUIS M. GARCIA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 


DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 
CAROLINE A. WOJTASZEK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

	Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), rendered August 4, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. 
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 criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Contrary to defendant's contention and the "concession" of the People, the record establishes that defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Upon our review of the colloquy, we conclude that Supreme Court "did not indicate to defendant that he automatically forfeited his right to appeal upon pleading guilty" (People v Tabb, 81 AD3d 1322, 1322 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 900 [2011]; cf. People v Moyett, 7 NY3d 892, 892-893 [2006]). "Rather, the court  engaged in a fuller colloquy, describing the nature of the right being waived without lumping that right into the panoply of trial rights automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty' " (Tabb, 81 AD3d at 1322, quoting Lopez, 6 NY3d at 257). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal, which specifically included a waiver of the right to challenge the severity of the sentence, encompasses his contention that the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and severe (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).
Entered: November 9, 2017
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court


