The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York recently upheld the conviction of Anthony Williams for attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance. This decision, made on June 26, 2026, affects Williams, who pleaded guilty to the charge, and highlights the court's stance on appeal waivers and sentencing severity.

The case began when Williams was charged with attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Following his guilty plea, he received a sentence that he later contested as harsh. The court's ruling addresses the validity of his appeal and the conditions surrounding his sentencing.

Background

Anthony Williams was the defendant in this case, facing charges from the Monroe County Supreme Court. He was represented by Julie Cianca, a public defender from Rochester, with Tonya Plank as counsel. The prosecution was led by Brian P. Green, the district attorney of Rochester, with Lisa Gray assisting.

The dispute arose after Williams pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in December 2023. Following his plea, he was sentenced, and he later appealed the judgment, claiming that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid and that his sentence was excessively harsh.

The case reached the Appellate Division after Williams sought to challenge the judgment from the lower court, which had been presided over by Judge Thomas E. Moran. The appeal focused on the validity of his waiver and the severity of his sentence.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court ruled that Williams' waiver of the right to appeal was "knowing, voluntary, and intelligent." This ruling was supported by precedents from previous cases, including People v. Thomas and People v. Moody.

The court further noted that the valid waiver included Williams' challenge to the severity of his sentence. In its opinion, the court stated, "the valid waiver encompasses defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence." Additionally, the court identified an error in the certificate of disposition, which incorrectly stated that Williams was convicted of criminal possession instead of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance. The court ordered this to be amended.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for defendants in similar situations. It reinforces the importance of understanding the waiver of the right to appeal and the conditions under which it can be considered valid. The court's decision indicates that defendants must be aware of their rights when entering pleas and the potential consequences of waiving those rights.

Moreover, the court's affirmation of the sentence suggests that appeals based solely on claims of harshness may not succeed if a valid waiver is in place. This case sets a precedent for future cases involving plea agreements and the conditions surrounding them, particularly in drug-related offenses.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Williams plans to appeal further. However, as it stands, the ruling from the Appellate Division is final unless further legal action is taken. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.