Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. NICOLE J. RADUNS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by vacating the order of protection in favor of C.S. and as modified the judgment is affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). Contrary to the contention of defendant, her valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses her challenge to the severity of the sentence inasmuch as County Court advised defendant of the maximum sentence it could impose before she waived her right to appeal (see People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825). As defendant correctly contends, however, the court had no authority to issue an order of protection in favor of an individual who was neither a victim of the crime nor a witness to the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty (see CPL 530.13[4][a] ). Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review by failing to object to the order of protection on that ground when it was issued (see People v. Shampine, 31 AD3d 1163, 1164), we nevertheless exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ). The order of protection issued in favor of that individual thus is invalid (see People v. Creighton, 298 A.D.2d 774, 776). We therefore modify the judgment by vacating that order of protection.
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: KA 09-00164
Decided: February 11, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)