Opinion
2011-12-6
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Watson REMINGTON, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel; Robert Ho on the brief), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel; Robert Ho on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.), rendered September 5, 2007, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant is correct that his waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable since the court failed to elicit a specific acknowledgment from him that he was waiving his right to appeal, as distinguished from his automatic forfeit of other trial rights, by pleading guilty ( see People v. Moyett, 7 N.Y.3d 892, 893, 826 N.Y.S.2d 597, 860 N.E.2d 59; People v. Foster, 87 A.D.3d 299, 303, 927 N.Y.S.2d 92). However, the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence of imprisonment that was eventually imposed, and, thus, has no basis to now contend that his sentence of imprisonment was excessive ( see People v. Gibson, 88 A.D.3d 1012, 1012, 931 N.Y.S.2d 530; People v. Gantt, 85 A.D.3d 815, 816, 924 N.Y.S.2d 821; People v. Tate, 84 A.D.3d 1416, 1417, 924 N.Y.S.2d 285; People v. Bunn, 79 A.D.3d 1143, 1143–1144, 914 N.Y.S.2d 907).
The defendant failed to preserve his argument that the duration of the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing exceeded the maximum time period pursuant to CPL 530.12(5)(ii), since he neither raised this issue at sentencing nor moved to amend the final order of protection on this ground ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 316–318, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13; People v. Foster, 87 A.D.3d at 304, 927 N.Y.S.2d 92; People v. Maxineau, 78 A.D.3d 732, 732, 909 N.Y.S.2d 659; People v. Langhorne, 60 A.D.3d 867, 867, 875 N.Y.S.2d 529). We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review this contention ( see People v. Maxineau, 78 A.D.3d at 732, 909 N.Y.S.2d 659; People v. Langhorne, 60 A.D.3d at 867, 875 N.Y.S.2d 529).