| People v St. Laurent |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01229 [70 AD3d 1417] |
| February 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen C. St.Laurent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Donald H. Dodd, District Attorney, Oswego (Michael G. Cianfarano of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (James W. McCarthy, J.), renderedAugust 27, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse inthe first degree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matterof discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by amending the order of protection and asmodified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Oswego County Court forfurther proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from ajudgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree(Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). We agree with defendant that County Court erred in setting theexpiration date of the order of protection without taking into account the jail-time credit to whichhe is entitled (see People v Dixon,38 AD3d 1242 [2007]; People vMingo, 38 AD3d 1270 [2007]). Although defendant failed to preserve that contentionfor our review (see People vNieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]), we exercise our power to review it as a matter ofdiscretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We therefore modify thejudgment by amending the order of protection, and we remit the matter to County Court todetermine the jail-time credit to which defendant is entitled and to specify in the order ofprotection an expiration date in accordance with CPL 530.13 (4) (former [ii]), the version of thestatute in effect when the judgment was rendered on August 27, 2007. As defendant correctlyconcedes, however, he failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court failed tostate on the record sufficient reasons for issuing the order of protection (see CPL 470.05[2]), and we decline to exercise our power to address his contention as a matter of discretion inthe interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith,Carni, Pine and Gorski, JJ.