Opinion
2017–12295 Ind.No. 5957/16
09-25-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Luis SANCHEZ, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Samuel R. Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Samuel R. Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that upon the appeal from the judgment, so much of the orders of protection as directed that they remain in effect until and including October 26, 2031, are vacated, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the duration of the orders of protection; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree. On appeal, the defendant contends, inter alia, that the sentence imposed was excessive and that two orders of protection, issued at the time of sentencing, should be vacated.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
As the People correctly concede, the duration of the orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing exceeded the maximum time limit set forth in CPL 530.12(5). Accordingly, we vacate so much of the orders of protection as directed that they remain in effect until and including October 26, 2031, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the duration of the orders of protection (see People v. Gooding , 174 A.D.3d 642 ; People v. Ramos , 164 A.D.3d 922, 923–924 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Viewed in totality, the record reflects that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento , 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN, MALTESE and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.