PEOPLE v. WILLIS (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Dutchess County (Jessica Segal, J.), both rendered December 4, 2023, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree under Superior Court Information No. 125/21, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) under Indictment No. 37/23, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the validity of his plea of guilty under Indictment No. 37/23 is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise object to its entry prior to the County Court imposing sentence (see People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 182, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617).  In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v. Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052, 1054, 23 N.Y.S.3d 121, 44 N.E.3d 196).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he validly waived his right to appeal under Indictment No. 37/23 (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. McCorkle, 230 A.D.3d 1337, 217 N.Y.S.3d 242).  The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed under that indictment was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. McCorkle, 230 A.D.3d at 1337, 217 N.Y.S.3d 242).

The sentence imposed under Superior Court Information No. 125/21 was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

DILLON, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.