People v Alexander
2012 NY Slip Op 04039 [95 AD3d 1563]
May 24, 2012
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, June 27, 2012


95 AD3d ? Smokey, People v95 AD3d ? People v Smokey95 AD3d ? 2012 NY Slip Op 04039 People v Smokey
2—The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shannon Alexander, Also Known as Eric Wright, Also Known as Smoke, Also Known as Smokey, Appellant.

—[*1] James P. Milstein, Public Defender, Albany (Theresa M. Suozzi of counsel), for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), for respondent.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered September 29, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and (2) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered September 29, 2010 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In March 2010, defendant was charged in an indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. In April 2010, he was charged in a second indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. In two separate proceedings before two different courts, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree for each indictment and also waived his right to appeal. Consistent with the respective plea agreements, he was sentenced on the first conviction to a prison term of 3½ years, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision, and on the second conviction to a prison term of 4½ years to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision, which sentences were to run concurrently. He [*2]now appeals.

Defendant's sole challenge is to the severity of the sentence. He is, however, precluded from making this claim by his valid waivers of the right to appeal (see People v Small, 82 AD3d 1451, 1452 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 801 [2011]; People v Waters, 80 AD3d 1002, 1003 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 864 [2011]). Therefore, the judgments are affirmed.

Peters, P.J., Rose, Kavanagh, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.