Opinion
2013-04-24
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Alexander SANCHEZ, appellant.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant. Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant. Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered November 3, 2011, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal ( see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645;People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222;People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;People v. Muniz, 91 N.Y.2d 570, 673 N.Y.S.2d 358, 696 N.E.2d 182) precludes appellate review of his claim that the County Court violated CPL 380.50 by not asking him if he wished to make a statement at sentencing ( see People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 281, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108;People v. Torovillota, 96 A.D.3d 787, 788, 945 N.Y.S.2d 567;People v. Arrington, 94 A.D.3d 903, 941 N.Y.S.2d 877;People v. Collier, 71 A.D.3d 909, 910, 895 N.Y.S.2d 848).
The defendant's contentions that the County Court erred in failing to state on the record the duration of the order of protection or to take into account the defendant's jail-time credit are unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not raise these issues at sentencing or move to amend the final order of protection on these grounds ( see People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 316–318, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13;People v. Reynolds, 85 A.D.3d 825, 925 N.Y.S.2d 553;People v. Peterkin, 27 A.D.3d 666, 667, 815 N.Y.S.2d 103;cf. People v. Dixon, 16 A.D.3d 517, 792 N.Y.S.2d 110). We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review these contentions.