The New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of Michael P. Semar for selling a controlled substance. This decision, made on June 5, 2026, affects Semar, who pleaded guilty to the charge of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the authority of the court regarding protective orders and procedural requirements for appeals.
The case originated in Wyoming County, where Semar was accused of selling Suboxone, a medication often used to treat opioid addiction. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of proper legal procedures in criminal cases, particularly regarding the issuance of protective orders and the preservation of objections for appeal.
Background
The parties involved in this case are the People of the State of New York as the respondent and Michael P. Semar as the defendant-appellant. Semar was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance after he sold Suboxone to another individual. The case was brought to the Wyoming County Court, where Semar entered a guilty plea on June 14, 2024.
The dispute arose when Semar appealed his conviction, arguing that the County Court lacked the authority to issue an order of protection for someone who was not a victim or witness to the crime. This appeal was filed after Semar had already been sentenced, raising questions about the validity of the protective order and the procedural aspects of his case.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division ruled to affirm Semar's conviction and dismissed the appeal regarding the sentence imposed. The court noted, "the appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposed sentence must be dismissed." This decision was made by a panel of judges, including Whalen, Bannister, Montour, Nowak, and Hannah.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that Semar had failed to object to the protective order at sentencing, which meant he did not preserve his challenge for appellate review. The court stated, "defendant failed to object at sentencing to the issuance of the order of protection and thus failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the validity of that order of protection." This ruling underscores the necessity for defendants to raise objections during sentencing to preserve issues for appeal.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for defendants in criminal cases, particularly regarding the issuance of protective orders. It clarifies that courts have the authority to issue such orders, even for individuals who are not direct victims or witnesses of the crime. Additionally, the decision reinforces the need for defendants to be vigilant during sentencing and to raise any objections at that time, as failure to do so can limit their ability to challenge decisions on appeal.
The case also serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements that defendants must follow in order to preserve their rights for future appeals. This ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, as it establishes a precedent for the importance of timely objections in the judicial process.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Semar plans to appeal this decision further. There may also be related cases pending that could address similar issues regarding protective orders and procedural requirements in criminal appeals.