Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Peglow 147 A.D.3d 1391

← Cases

People v. Peglow

147 A.D.3d 1391 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2017-02-03 Docket Appeal No. 1 English

Judges Present — Carni, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, Curran and Trout-man, JJ.

Contents

Majority

p. 1391
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricky D. Peglow, II, Appellant.
(Appeal No. 1.)
[46 NYS3d 449]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), rendered January 13, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a

p. 1392
judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1]). In appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon the same plea of guilty, of falsifying business records in the first degree (§ 175.10). With respect to appeal No. 1, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055 , 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]) and, in any event, defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review by failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Jackson, 50 AD3d 1615 , 1615-1616 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 960 [2008]).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention in both appeals, the sentence is not illegal. Furthermore, his valid waiver of the right to appeal with respect to both the conviction and sentence encompasses his contention in both appeals that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 , 255-256 [2006]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925 , 928 [2012]).

Present — Carni, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, Curran and Trout-man, JJ.

Cases cited