Opinion
No. 112526
03-14-2024
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Lee, Appellant.
The Law Office of Lindsey Pieper, Rochester (Lindsey Pieper of counsel), for appellant. Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Nathan M. Bloom of counsel), for respondent.
Calendar Date:February 20, 2024
The Law Office of Lindsey Pieper, Rochester (Lindsey Pieper of counsel), for appellant.
Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Nathan M. Bloom of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Pritzker and Mackey, JJ.
Egan Jr., J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Christopher P. Baker, J.), rendered August 5, 2019, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In February 2019, defendant was charged in a six-count indictment with three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. In satisfaction thereof, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to six years in prison, followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's sole challenge on appeal concerns the validity of the indictment. As to his argument that the counts therein are multiplicitous, his claim in this regard was forfeited by his unchallenged guilty plea (see People v Cole, 118 A.D.3d 1098, 1099-1100 [3d Dept 2014]; People v Oakley, 112 A.D.3d 1064, 1064 [3d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1140 [2014]; People v Slingerland, 101 A.D.3d 1265, 1266 [3d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1104 [2013]). In any event, the counts were not multiplicitous as each required proof of an additional fact, or more, that the other did not (see People v Arnold, 15 A.D.3d 783, 785 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 851 [2005]). Defendant's similar claim that the indictment allegedly failed to comply with the requirements of CPL 200.50 (7) is nonjurisdictional in nature and, thus, was likewise waived by his guilty plea (see CPL 200.50 [7]; People v Dubois, 150 A.D.3d 1562, 1564 [3d Dept 2017]; People v Cole, 118 A.D.3d at 1099-1100).
Garry, P.J., Clark, Pritzker and Mackey, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.