PEOPLE v. MOREL (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Phyllis Chu, J.), both rendered June 24, 2022, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree under Indictment No. 71676/21, and criminal contempt in the first degree under Indictment No. 73431/21, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

ORDERED that the judgments are modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees;  as so modified, the judgments are affirmed.

“Criminal Procedure Law § 420.35(2–a) permits the waiver of surcharges and fees for individuals, like the defendant, who were less than 21 years old at the time of the subject crime” (People v. Cabrera, 222 A.D.3d 878, 879, 200 N.Y.S.3d 101).  Pursuant to the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, and as the People do not oppose the granting of this relief, we modify the judgments by vacating the surcharges and fees imposed on the defendant at sentencing (see CPL 420.35[2–a][c];  People v. Jackson, 225 A.D.3d 712, 205 N.Y.S.3d 216;  People v. Douglas, 205 A.D.3d 732, 732, 165 N.Y.S.3d 744).

The defendant's contention that the orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing should be vacated because the Supreme Court failed to state on the record its reasons for issuing them (see CPL 530.13[4];  People v. Moncrieft, 168 A.D.3d 982, 92 N.Y.S.3d 335) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see People v. Hagood–Fulson, 193 A.D.3d 973, 142 N.Y.S.3d 853;  People v. Colon, 187 A.D.3d 780, 130 N.Y.S.3d 344).

The sentence imposed under Indictment No. 71676/21 was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.