People v. Bundscho

People v Bundscho (2025 NY Slip Op 03409) People v Bundscho 2025 NY Slip Op 03409 Decided on June 6, 2025 Appellate Division, Fourth 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 on June 6, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department PRESENT: CURRAN, J.P., MONTOUR, SMITH, DELCONTE, AND HANNAH, JJ. 160 KA 24-00086 [*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v NATHAN BUNDSCHO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON & HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (LYLE T. HAJDU OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. NATHAN BUNDSCHO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. MICHAEL J. KEANE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah A. Haendiges, J.), rendered September 12, 2023. The judgment convicted defendant upon a plea of guilty of criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts). It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50 [3]). We conclude on this record that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Simpson, 232 AD3d 1266, 1266 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1082 [2025]; People v Foumakoye, 229 AD3d 1380, 1380 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 970 [2024]; People v Roberto, 224 AD3d 1367, 1367-1368 [4th Dept 2024]). Contrary to defendant's contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefs, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes our review of his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]; cf. People v Adams, 93 AD3d 1082, 1082-1083 [3d Dept 2012]). We have considered the remaining contentions in defendant's pro se supplemental brief, and we conclude that none warrants modification or reversal of the judgment. Entered: June 6, 2025 Ann Dillon Flynn Clerk of the Court