PEOPLE v. SIMMONDS (2025)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Meliq SIMMONDS, Defendant-Appellant.

321 Decided: June 06, 2025

PRESENT: CURRAN, J.P., BANNISTER, SMITH, DELCONTE, AND HANNAH, JJ.

FRANK POLICELLI, UTICA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. TODD C. CARVILLE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (DAWN CATERA LUPI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and criminal possession of a firearm (§ 265.01-b [1]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid (see People v. Lyon, 227 A.D.3d 1521, 1522, 209 N.Y.S.3d 266 [4th Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 928, 216 N.Y.S.3d 111, 240 N.E.3d 830 [2024]; People v. Tennant, 217 A.D.3d 1564, 1564, 190 N.Y.S.3d 567 [4th Dept. 2023]; see generally People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 564-566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]) and thus does not preclude our review of his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v. Mendoza, 37 N.Y.3d 1075, 1076, 155 N.Y.S.3d 11, 176 N.E.3d 1053 [2021]), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network