Opinion
2019–14339 Ind. No. 1978/17
11-24-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Sarah A. LARSON, appellant.
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Grazia DiVincenzo and Marion Tang of counsel; Immanuel Petrikovsky on the brief), for respondent.
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Grazia DiVincenzo and Marion Tang of counsel; Immanuel Petrikovsky on the brief), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, BETSY BARROS, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (William J. Condon, J.), rendered September 5, 2019, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that she violated a condition thereof, upon her admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon her previous conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant did not appeal from the original judgment of conviction, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Thus, the defendant is foreclosed from challenging the propriety of the original judgment, including, inter alia, her claim as to the validity of her plea of guilty, on this appeal from the amended judgment (see People v. Hazel, 145 A.D.3d 797, 798, 42 N.Y.S.3d 358 ; People v. Sansone, 65 A.D.3d 636, 637, 883 N.Y.S.2d 726 ).
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant did not validly waive her right to appeal (see People v. Soler, 189 A.D.3d 1086, 1087, 133 N.Y.S.3d 833 ). Nonetheless, the sentence imposed by the amended judgment was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, DUFFY, BARROS and FORD, JJ., concur.