PEOPLE v. BRATTON (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from three judgments of the County Court, Orange County (Craig Stephen Brown, J.), all rendered September 14, 2023, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree under Indictment No. 70842/22, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 70419/23, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 70420/23, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970;  People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).  The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentences imposed were excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 253, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. Florio, 179 A.D.3d 834, 835, 113 N.Y.S.3d 886).

The defendant's contention that the County Court failed to comply with CPL 400.21 before he was sentenced as a second felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review (see id. § 470.05[2];  People v. Proctor, 79 N.Y.2d 992, 994, 584 N.Y.S.2d 435, 594 N.E.2d 929;  People v. Thomas, 215 A.D.3d 693, 694, 186 N.Y.S.3d 359).  In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as the statutory purposes of CPL 400.21 were met and the court substantially complied with the statute (see People v. Smothers, 175 A.D.3d 1441, 1442, 106 N.Y.S.3d 626).  The defendant was provided with the predicate felony statement and admitted the allegations in the statement, and there is no indication that the defendant contemplated a challenge to the constitutionality of his prior conviction (see People v. Thomas, 215 A.D.3d at 694, 186 N.Y.S.3d 359;  People v. Smothers, 175 A.D.3d at 1442, 106 N.Y.S.3d 626).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments.

GENOVESI, J.P., WARHIT, VOUTSINAS and HOM, JJ., concur.