Opinion
No. 777 KA 21-00807
11-15-2024
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. TRISHA A. CASTELLANO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (CARA A. WALDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JAMES B. RITTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (V. CHRISTOPHER EAGGLESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (CARA A. WALDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JAMES B. RITTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (V. CHRISTOPHER EAGGLESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CURRAN, OGDEN, DELCONTE, AND HANNAH, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), rendered September 12, 2019. The judgment convicted defendant upon her plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon a plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that her waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and that her contention concerning the severity of her sentence is thus properly before us. Inasmuch as defendant has completed serving the sentence imposed, her contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe has been rendered moot (see People v McMullen, 224 A.D.3d 1280, 1281 [4th Dept 2024]; People v Demay, 201 A.D.3d 1351, 1351-1352 [4th Dept 2022]; People v Seppe, 188 A.D.3d 1716, 1716 [4th Dept 2020]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's challenge to her sentence has not been rendered moot and that she did not validly waive her right to appeal, we would conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe (see e.g. People v Ismael, 210 A.D.3d 1528, 1529-1530 [4th Dept 2022]).