Opinion
2013-11-15
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Larry M. PETERSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered May 14, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Carr Saglimben LLP, Olean (Jay D. Carr of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Lori Pettit Rieman, District Attorney, Little Valley (John C. Luzier of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered May 14, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Carr Saglimben LLP, Olean (Jay D. Carr of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Lori Pettit Rieman, District Attorney, Little Valley (John C. Luzier of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals 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] ). We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because “no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant's right to appeal” with *865respect to his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence ( People v. Pimentel, 108 A.D.3d 861, 862, 969 N.Y.S.2d 574;see People v. Maracle, 19 N.Y.3d 925, 928, 950 N.Y.S.2d 498, 973 N.E.2d 1272). We nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.