People v Lawrence

People v Lawrence 2016 NY Slip Op 00402 Decided on January 21, 2016 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: January 21, 2016
106897

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

DEON LAWRENCE, Appellant.

Calendar Date: November 17, 2015
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

Mark Diamond, Albany, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.

Lahtinen, J.P.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Meyer, J.), rendered April 25, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

In 2013, after selling cocaine to two undercover police officers, defendant was charged by indictment with one count each of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in satisfaction of the indictment, waived his right to appeal and was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to 2½ years in prison to be followed by two years of

postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Upon our review of the record, we find that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal, thereby precluding his challenges to his conviction and sentence (see People v Walton, 101 AD3d 1489, 1489-1490 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1105 [2013]) and his claim that he was denied his statutory right to testify before the grand jury (see CPL 190.50 [5] [a]; People v Johnson, 97 AD3d 990, 991 [2012]). Defendant's argument that he was improperly sentenced as a prior felony offender, to the extent preserved, has been reviewed and found to be without merit (see People v Dixon, 118 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2014]).

Garry, Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.