| People v Bernardini |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 05869 [142 AD3d 671] |
| August 24, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Mark P. Bernardini, Appellant. |
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.
James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Laurie Sapakoff andSteven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Molea, J.), rendered February 19, 2014, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the firstdegree and forcible touching, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d337, 341-342 [2015]).
The defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered because the Supreme Court did not adequately inform him of theconsequences of his plea on a determination pursuant to the Sex Offender RegistrationAct (see Correction Law art 6-C). Although this contention survives his validwaiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]), it isunpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his pleaor otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court (see People v Murray, 15 NY3d725, 726-727 [2010]; People v Holcombe, 116 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2014]; People v Beckers, 94 AD3d774, 775 [2012]). We decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest ofjustice jurisdiction.
The defendant's contentions concerning two orders of protection issued at the time ofsentencing survive his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Kumar, 127AD3d 882, 883 [2015]; People v Cedeno, 107 AD3d 734, 734 [2013]). However,the defendant's contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Nieves, 2NY3d 310, 316-318 [2004]; People v O'Connor, 136 AD3d 945, 945 [2016]; People v Fortier, 130 AD3d642, 643 [2015]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest ofjustice jurisdiction.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record shows that he was afforded theeffective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687[1984]; People v Caban, 5NY3d 143 [2005]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Balkin, J.P.,Roman, Cohen and Connolly, JJ., concur.