PEOPLE v. MONACELLI (2002)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.30 [4] ).   By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his present contention that the grand jury proceedings were impaired, inasmuch as the alleged error did not render the accusatory instrument jurisdictionally defective (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 230-231, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773;  People v. Davis, 289 A.D.2d 1069, 735 N.Y.S.2d 851, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 753, 742 N.Y.S.2d 613, 769 N.E.2d 359;  People v. Robertson, 279 A.D.2d 711, 718 N.Y.S.2d 463, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 805, 726 N.Y.S.2d 383, 750 N.E.2d 85).   Contrary to defendant's further contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in issuing an order of protection (see generally CPL 530.13[4] ).   The court was not required to obtain the consent of the person for whose benefit the order of protection was issued, and an order of protection “may be issued independent of a plea agreement” (People v. Roman, 243 A.D.2d 831, 831, 665 N.Y.S.2d 352;  cf.  People v. Warren, 280 A.D.2d 75, 77, 721 N.Y.S.2d 152).   Also contrary to defendant's contention, the issuance of the order of protection does not render the sentence unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: