PEOPLE v. WALDROPT (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Teresa K. Corrigan, J.), rendered March 24, 2022, convicting her of assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that her plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, as she did not move to withdraw her plea or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court (see People v. Perrella, 188 A.D.3d 1263, 1263, 132 N.Y.S.3d 800), and the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, because the plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on the defendant's guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of her plea (see People v. Palladino, 140 A.D.3d 1194, 1194, 33 N.Y.S.3d 469).  In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit (see People v. Perrella, 188 A.D.3d at 1263, 132 N.Y.S.3d 800).  Here, the record as a whole affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and constitutes a valid waiver of her constitutional rights under Boykin v. Alabama (395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274;  see People v. Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052, 1055, 23 N.Y.S.3d 121, 44 N.E.3d 196;  People v. Harrison, 138 A.D.3d 757, 757–758, 27 N.Y.S.3d 896).

The defendant's challenge to the duration of the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing is unpreserved for appellate review, since she did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the order of protection on this ground (see People v. Crosby, 230 A.D.3d 597, 598, 214 N.Y.S.3d 794;  People v. Holmes, 206 A.D.3d 761, 762, 167 N.Y.S.3d 828).  Under the circumstances, we decline to reach this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a];  People v. Narmetov, 244 A.D.3d 1136, 1136, 244 N.Y.S.3d 751).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).  The defendant's contention that her sentence violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Trigueros–Hernandez, 243 A.D.3d 817, 818, 245 N.Y.S.3d 339) and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Zitrenbaum, 231 A.D.3d 1064, 1064, 219 N.Y.S.3d 141).

LASALLE, P.J., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.