Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The People, etc., respondent, v. Luis A. Martinez, appellant.
Submitted—April 17, 2026
DECISION & ORDER
G/
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLaughlin, J.), rendered March 6, 2023, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contentions that his sentence was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255) and that the County Court failed to comply with proper procedure in adjudicating him a second felony offender (see People v. Thomas, 148 AD3d 734).
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives his valid appeal waiver (see People v. Smith, 146 AD3d 904; People v. Magnotta, 137 AD3d 1303). However, the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, since he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906; People v. Morgado, 144 AD3d 709, 710). In any event, the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781; People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543).
The defendant's contention that the County Court should have ordered a psychiatric and physical examination pursuant to CPL 390.30(2) is raised for the first time on appeal, is not preserved for appellate review, and, in any event, is without merit (see id. § 470.05[2]; People v. Roldan, 223 A.D.2d 738; People v. Smith, 171 A.D.2d 1060).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, LOVE and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: 2023–03746 (Ind. No. 70679 /22)
Decided: June 17, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)