

People v Anderson (2019 NY Slip Op 06896)





People v Anderson


2019 NY Slip Op 06896


Decided on September 27, 2019


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 September 27, 2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.


790 KA 18-01539

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
vANTONIO M. ANDERSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.) 


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 May 1, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. 
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals, in appeal No. 1, from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). In appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him, also upon his guilty plea, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (§ 220.31). Contrary to defendant's contention in both appeals, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and those valid waivers foreclose his challenge to the severity of the sentences (see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).
Entered: September 27, 2019
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court


