Opinion
06-30-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark S. SNYDER, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for defendant-appellant. Barry L. Porsch, District Attorney, Waterloo, for respondent.
Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for defendant-appellant.
Barry L. Porsch, District Attorney, Waterloo, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1] ). In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39[1] ). The two pleas were entered in a single plea proceeding.
We reject defendant's contention in each appeal that he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his right to appeal (see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). The record establishes that County Court " ‘engage[d] ... defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ..., and informed him that the waiver was a condition of the plea agreement" (People v. Krouth, 115 A.D.3d 1354, 1354–1355, 982 N.Y.S.2d 678, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1064, 994 N.Y.S.2d 323, 18 N.E.3d 1144 ; see Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Dunham, 83 A.D.3d 1423, 1424, 919 N.Y.S.2d 258, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 794, 929 N.Y.S.2d 102, 952 N.E.2d 1097 ). Defendant's challenge in each appeal to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is foreclosed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Northrup, 23 A.D.3d 1102, 1102, 804 N.Y.S.2d 229, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 757, 810 N.Y.S.2d 425, 843 N.E.2d 1165 ). Contrary to defendant's contention in appeal No. 1, his waiver encompasses his challenge to the court's suppression ruling (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 ). Finally, although defendant's waiver of his right "to appeal the propriety of [his] conviction to a higher [c]ourt" does not foreclose his "right to invoke the [this Court's] interest-of-justice jurisdiction to reduce the sentence" (Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; see People v. Maracle, 19 N.Y.3d 925, 927–928, 950 N.Y.S.2d 498, 973 N.E.2d 1272 ), we decline in each appeal to reduce defendant's bargained-for sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][b] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, DeJOSEPH, CURRAN, and WINSLOW, JJ., concur.