Opinion
06-14-2024
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Zachary BENTLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
KEEM APPEALS, PLLC, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. MARK MOODY, ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OSWEGO (AMY L. HALLENBECK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered June 3, 2021. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree.
KEEM APPEALS, PLLC, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MARK MOODY, ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OSWEGO (AMY L. HALLENBECK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., BANNISTER, MONTOUR, NOWAK, AND KEANE, 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 guilty plea of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). Assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and therefore does not preclude our review of any of defendant’s contentions (see People v Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006]; People v. Henry, 207 A.D.3d 1062, 1062-1063, 170 N.Y.S.3d 769 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 940, 177 N.Y.S.3d 518, 198 N.E.3d 761 [2022]; see generally People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 561-562, 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]), we reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe.
We conclude that defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention regarding the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Secrist, 74 A.D.3d 1853,1853, 902 N.Y.S.2d 469 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 863, 923 N.Y.S.2d 425, 947 N.E.2d 1204 [2011]). In any event, we conclude that the contention lacks merit (see People v. Alicea, 148 A.D.3d 1662, 1663, 51 N.Y.S.3d 744 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1122, 64 N.Y.S.3d 672, 86 N.E.3d 564 [2017]).
In his reply brief, defendant has withdrawn his further contention that County Court violated his right to be physically present at sentencing, (see CPL 380.40). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants modification or reversal of the judgment.