Opinion
06-26-2024
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Eduardo SARASTY, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Alexa Askari of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Danielle M. O’Boyle of counsel; Anmari Guerrero on the memorandum), for respondent.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LARA J. GENOVESI, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Karen Gopee, J.), imposed February 10, 2023, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Thompson, 225 A.D.3d 713, 206 N.Y.S.3d 715; People v. Cabral, 223 A.D.3d 839, 839, 203 N.Y.S.3d 702). The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Cabral, 223 A.D.3d at 839, 203 N.Y.S.3d 702).
CONNOLLY, J.P., IANNACCI, GENOVESI and VENTURA, JJ., concur.