THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. AVION CURTIS DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03 [3]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based on his postplea conduct and that the enhanced sentence is unduly harsh and severe. We affirm.

Initially, while defendant's contention that the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence would survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v O’Brien, 98 AD3d 1264, 1264 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1063 [2013]), that contention “ ‘is not preserved for our review because defendant did not object to the enhanced sentence, nor did he move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction’ ” (People v Roberto, 224 AD3d 1367, 1368 [4th Dept 2024]; see People v Wilson, 232 AD3d 1230, 1231 [4th Dept 2024]; People v Bishop, 198 AD3d 1381, 1382 [4th Dept 2021]).

Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid or otherwise does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the enhanced sentence (see generally People v Campbell, 246 AD3d 1381, 1381 [4th Dept 2026], lv denied 45 NY3d 969 [2026]; People v DeAngelis, 227 AD3d 1475, 1475-1476

[4th Dept 2024]), we nevertheless conclude that the enhanced sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court