| People v Snyder |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 05357 [151 AD3d 1939] |
| June 30, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark S.Snyder, Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) |
Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for defendant-appellant.
Barry L. Porsch, District Attorney, Waterloo, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Seneca County Court (Dennis F. Bender, J.), renderedSeptember 16, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon hisplea 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 himupon 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 andvoluntarily waive his right to appeal (seegenerally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The record establishes that CountyCourt " 'engage[d] . . . defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that thewaiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice' . . . , andinformed him that the waiver was a condition of the plea agreement" (People v Krouth, 115 AD3d 1354,1354-1355 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1064 [2014]; see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 257;People v Dunham, 83 AD3d1423, 1424 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 794 [2011]). Defendant's challenge in eachappeal to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is foreclosed by his valid waiver of theright to appeal (see People vNorthrup, 23 AD3d 1102, 1102 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]). Contraryto defendant's contention in appeal No. 1, his waiver encompasses his challenge to the court'ssuppression ruling (see People vSanders, 25 NY3d 337, 342 [2015]; People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]).Finally, although defendant's waiver of his right "to appeal the propriety of [his] conviction to ahigher [c]ourt" does not foreclose his "right to invoke the [this Court's] interest-of-justicejurisdiction to reduce the sentence" (Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d925, 927-928 [2012]), we decline in each appeal to reduce defendant's bargained-forsentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]).Present—Whalen, P.J., Peradotto, DeJoseph, Curran and Winslow, JJ.