| People v Moon |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07183 [43 AD3d 1379] |
| September 28, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney M.Moon, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Kelly Christine Wolford of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.), renderedAugust 16, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the firstdegree (four counts), sodomy in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree (sevencounts), sexual abuse in the second degree (six counts), sexual abuse in the third degree andendangering the welfare of a child (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby isunanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of,inter alia, four counts of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1], [4]). Contrary tothe contention of defendant, County Court properly issued an order of protection with respect tohis son because the victims of the crimes of which defendant was convicted were his son's halfsisters and were members of defendant's household (see generally Matter of Orellana vEscalante, 228 AD2d 63, 64-65 [1997]). "When[, as here,] a crime has been committedbetween members of the same family or household, an order of protection may be issued in favorof the victim of such crime and members of the family or household of the victim" (People vLa Motte, 285 AD2d 814, 816-817 [2001]; see People v Shampine, 31 AD3d 1163, 1164-1165 [2006];People v Goodband, 291 AD2d 584, 585 [2002]). Furthermore, the order of protectiondoes not render the sentence unduly harsh or severe (see People v Victor, 20 AD3d 927 [2005], lv denied 5NY3d 833, 885 [2005]), nor does it in effect constitute a termination of defendant's parentalrights.
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the record reflects that thecourt determined the length of the sentence prior to sentencing, thus depriving defendant of hisright to input at the time of sentencing (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-316 [2004]), and we declineto exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice(see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Although defendant's related contention that the court failed toapprehend the extent of its discretion in sentencing him does not require preservation (see People v Schafer, 19 AD3d1133 [2005]; see also People v Hager, 213 AD2d 1008 [1995]), we conclude that therecord does not support that contention (see People v Lee, 24 AD3d 1246 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d850 [2006]; cf. Schafer, 19 AD3d 1133 [2005]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith,Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.