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, etc., respondent, v. Frankie CHERRY, appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Raymond L. Rodriguez, J.), rendered March 23, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Cooper, 220 A.D.3d 714, 714, 195 N.Y.S.3d 813). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (People v. Cooper, 220 A.D.3d at 714, 195 N.Y.S.3d 813; People v. Porter, 210 A.D.3d 911, 911, 176 N.Y.S.3d 788).
The defendant's contentions that the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing should be vacated because it failed to comply with CPL 530.13 or modified because it failed to take into account the defendant's jail-time credit for the period he was incarcerated while the criminal action was pending are unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object to the order of protection at sentencing or otherwise raise those issues before the Supreme Court (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Martinez, 214 A.D.3d 1004, 184 N.Y.S.3d 608; People v. Portillo, 196 A.D.3d 605, 606, 147 N.Y.S.3d 455). Moreover, “[b]ecause sentencing courts are in the best position to amend permanent orders of protection, the better practice—and best use of judicial resources—is for a defendant seeking adjustment of such an order to request relief from the issuing court in the first instance, resorting to the appellate courts only if necessary” (People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 317, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13). Under the circumstances presented, we decline to review the defendant's unpreserved contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v. Martinez, 214 A.D.3d 1004, 184 N.Y.S.3d 608; People v. Portillo, 196 A.D.3d at 606, 147 N.Y.S.3d 455).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, FORD and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2022–02630
Decided: March 27, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)