Opinion
2021-03742
06-11-2021
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. JOHN A. HARRISON, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA, D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (REBECCA L. KONST OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JAMES B. RITTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (V. CHRISTOPHER EAGGLESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA, D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (REBECCA L. KONST OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JAMES B. RITTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (V. CHRISTOPHER EAGGLESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered July 21, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, disseminating indecent material to minors in the second degree and failure to register as a sex offender.
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 criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]), disseminating indecent material to minors in the second degree (§ 235.21 [3]), and failure to register as a sex offender (Correction Law § 168-f [4]). We affirm.
As the People correctly concede, defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal is invalid (see People v Smith, 192 A.D.3d 1599, 1599 [4th Dept 2021]; People v Hunt, 188 A.D.3d 1648, 1648-1649 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1097 [2021]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea because he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Shanley, 189 A.D.3d 2108, 2108 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1100 [2021]). Furthermore, this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666 [1988]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.