THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. SCOTT EVANS DEFENDANT APPELLANT APPEAL NO (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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 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 in the same plea proceeding, of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]). Contrary to defendant's contention in each appeal, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Rolfe, 232 AD3d 1243, 1243 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 965 [2025]; see generally People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559-564 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). We nonetheless conclude that the waiver does not encompass defendant's challenge to the severity of the aggregate enhanced sentence imposed as a result of his postplea conduct inasmuch as County Court “failed to advise defendant prior to his waiver of the potential period of incarceration that could be imposed for an enhanced sentence” (People v Newton [appeal No. 1], 173 AD3d 1680, 1680 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 36 NY3d 930 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Baker, 204 AD3d 1471, 1471 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1069 [2022]; People v Watson, 169 AD3d 1526, 1528 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 982 [2019]). We further

conclude, however, that the aggregate enhanced sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court