Opinion
2015–02961 2015–02962 Ind. Nos. 2592/12, 10855/12
04-24-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Krystal HARRIS, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Patricia Pazner of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Seth M. Lieberman of counsel; Javon Henry on the brief), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Patricia Pazner of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Seth M. Lieberman of counsel; Javon Henry on the brief), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ann Donnelly, J.), both rendered June 18, 2014, convicting her of attempted kidnapping in the second degree under Indictment No. 2592/12, and attempted course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child under Indictment No. 10855/12, upon her pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to appeal (see People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d 69, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492 ; see also People v. Bryant, 28 N.Y.3d 1094, 1096, 45 N.Y.S.3d 335, 68 N.E.3d 60 ; People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 339–342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Brown, 161 A.D.3d 766, 72 N.Y.S.3d 832 ). The defendant's valid waiver of her right to appeal precludes appellate review of her contention that the sentences imposed were excessive (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 265, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying her request to make the final orders of protection entered at the time of sentencing "subject to" any subsequent order of the Family Court survives her valid waiver of appeal (see People v. Cedeno, 107 A.D.3d 734, 965 N.Y.S.2d 887 ; see also People v. Bernardini, 142 A.D.3d 671, 672, 36 N.Y.S.3d 827 ; People v. Kumar, 127 A.D.3d 882, 883, 4 N.Y.S.3d 900 ). "The [Supreme] Court has authority to determine whether its order of protection will be subject to Family Court orders" ( Matter of Brianna L. [Marie A.], 103 A.D.3d 181, 186, 956 N.Y.S.2d 518 ). Under the circumstances of this case, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying her request (see Matter of Utter v. Usher, 150 A.D.3d 863, 865, 55 N.Y.S.3d 71 ; Matter of Brianna L. [Marie A.], 103 A.D.3d at 186, 956 N.Y.S.2d 518 ).
MASTRO, J.P., LASALLE, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.