Opinion
514 KA 11-02368
05-01-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mannix A. MITCHELL, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51[b][v] ), defendant contends that County Court violated Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50–54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 and his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution when it admitted in evidence the order of protection. We reject that contention inasmuch as “the order of protection and the statements contained therein were not testimonial in nature ... The order of protection, which indicated that the defendant was present in court when it was issued and that the defendant was advised of it, constituted a contemporaneous record of objective facts and was not directly accusatory” (People v. Lino, 65 A.D.3d 1263, 1264, 885 N.Y.S.2d 421, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 940, 895 N.Y.S.2d 330, 922 N.E.2d 919 ; see People v. Myers, 87 A.D.3d 826, 829, 928 N.Y.S.2d 407, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 954, 936 N.Y.S.2d 80, 959 N.E.2d 1029 ; see generally People v. Pealer, 20 N.Y.3d 447, 453, 962 N.Y.S.2d 592, 985 N.E.2d 903, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 105, 187 L.Ed.2d 77, rearg. denied 24 N.Y.3d 993, 997 N.Y.S.2d 105, 21 N.E.3d 556 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.