Opinion
02-02-2024
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Matthew BAUZA, Defendant-Appellant.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (CLEA WEISS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AMY N. WALENDZIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Charles A. Schiano, Jr., J.), rendered March 16, 2020. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (six counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts).
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (CLEA WEISS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AMY N. WALENDZIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., BANNISTER, NOWAK, DELCONTE, AND KEANE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
[1] Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of, inter alia, six counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [3]). Defendant contends that Penal Law § 265.03 is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022). Inasmuch as defendant failed to raise a constitutional challenge to the statute during the proceedings in Supreme Court, any such challenge is unpreserved for our review (see People v. Maddox, 218 A.D.3d 1154, 1154-1155, 193 N.Y.S.3d 508 [4th Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 1081, 2023 WL 9284446 [2023]; People v. Jacque-Crews, 213 A.D.3d 1335, 1335-1336, 183 N.Y.S.3d 234 [4th Dept. 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1111, 186 N.Y.S.3d 841, 208 N.E.3d 69 [2023]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, his "challenge to the constitutionality of a statute must be preserved" (People v. Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 404, 408, 813 N.Y.S.2d 27, 846 N.E.2d 457 [2006], rearg denied 7 N.Y.3d 742, 819 N.Y.S.2d 876, 853 N.E.2d 247 [2006]; see People v. Cabrera, — N.Y.3d —, —, — N.Y.S.3d —, — N.E.3d —, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05968, *2-7 [2023]) and the mode of proceedings exception to the preservation requirement does not apply (see People v. David, — N.Y.3d —, —, — N.Y.S.3d —, — N.E.3d —, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05970, *3-4 [2023]; People v. Adames, 216 A.D.3d 519, 520, 188 N.Y.S.3d 479 [1st Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 949, 195 N.Y.S.3d 666, 217 N.E.3d 686 [2023]).
[2] Defendant further contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on the ground that his attorney failed to effectuate his intent to testify before the grand jury. That contention "does not survive his guilty plea … because there was no showing that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance" (People v. Dean, 48 A.D.3d 1244, 1245, 852 N.Y.S.2d 545 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 839, 859 N.Y.S.2d 398, 889 N.E.2d 85 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Halsey, 108 A.D.3d 1123, 1123-1124, 968 N.Y.S.2d 309 [4th Dept. 2013]; People v. Ortiz, 104 A.D.3d 1202, 1202-1203, 960 N.Y.S.2d 587 [4th Dept. 2013]).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.