Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid (see People v Vilella, 213 A.D.3d 1282, 1283 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1157 [2023]; People v Hemphill, 192 A.D.3d 1479, 1480 [4th Dept 2021]; see generally People v Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 564-566 [2019], cert denied __ U.S. __, 140 S.Ct. 2634 [2020]) and thus does not preclude our review of his challenge to his sentence, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is invalid (see People v. Vilella, 213 A.D.3d 1282, 1283, 181 N.Y.S.3d 504 [4th Dept. 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1157, 190 N.Y.S.3d 688, 211 N.E.3d 1141 [2023]; People v. Hemphill, 192 A.D.3d 1479, 1480, 140 N.Y.S.3d 822 [4th Dept. 2021]; see generally People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 564-566, 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]) and

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that he did not validly waive his right to appeal and that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and therefore does not preclude our review of his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hemphill, 192 A.D.3d 1479, 1480 [4th Dept 2021]; People v Alls, 187 A.D.3d 1515, 1515 [4th Dept 2020]; People v Love, 181 A.D.3d 1193, 1193 [4th Dept 2020]), we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree ( Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.39 [1] ), defendant contends that he did not validly waive his right to appeal and that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and therefore does not preclude our review of his challenge to the severity of his sentence (seePeople v. Hemphill , 192 A.D.3d 1479, 1480, 140 N.Y.S.3d 822 [4th Dept. 2021] ; People v. Alls , 187 A.D.3d 1515, 1515, 129 N.Y.S.3d 881 [4th Dept. 2020] ; People v. Love , 181 A.D.3d 1193, 1193, 118 N.Y.S.3d 475 [4th Dept. 2020] ), we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that he did not validly waive his right to appeal and that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and therefore does not preclude our review of his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hemphill, 192 A.D.3d 1479, 1480 [4th Dept 2021]; People v Alls, 187 A.D.3d 1515, 1515 [4th Dept 2020]; People v Love, 181 A.D.3d 1193, 1193 [4th Dept 2020]), we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.