| People v Hanniford |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 05998 [174 AD3d 921] |
| July 31, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dean R. Hanniford, Appellant. |
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.
Robert V. Tendy, District Attorney, Carmel, NY (David M. Bishop of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (James T.Rooney, J.), rendered June 14, 2017, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal bringsup for review an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing.
Ordered that upon the appeal from the judgment, the order of protection issued at the time ofsentencing is vacated, on the law; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waivedhis right to appeal (see People vSanders, 25 NY3d 337, 339-342 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]; see generally People v Brown, 122AD3d 133, 145-146 [2014]). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludesappellate review of his challenge to the County Court's suppression determination (see Peoplev Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v King, 169 AD3d 1060, 1060 [2019]; People v Jessamy, 137 AD3d1056, 1056 [2016]).
The defendant's contentions concerning the validity of the order of protection issued over hisobjection at the time of sentencing survive his appeal waiver (see People v May, 138 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2016]; People v Kumar, 127 AD3d 882,883 [2015]; People v Sabo, 117AD3d 1089 [2014]). As the defendant correctly contends, the County Court had no authorityto issue an order of protection in favor of individuals who were neither victims of the crime norwitnesses to the crime to which the defendant pleaded guilty (see CPL 530.13 [4]; People v Cooke, 119 AD3d 1399,1401 [2014], affd 24 NY3d 1196 [2015]; People v Raduns, 70 AD3d 1355, 1355 [2010]; People vCreighton, 298 AD2d 774, 774-776 [2002]). The persons in whose favor the court issued anorder of protection were the owners of certain stolen property that served as the basis for threecounts in the indictment that were dismissed in satisfaction of the defendant's plea of guilty to theunrelated count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. Accordingly,we must vacate the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing (see CPL 530.13[4]; People v Cooke, 119 AD3d at 1401; People v Raduns, 70 AD3d at 1355;People v Creighton, 298 AD2d at 774-776). Chambers, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Iannacci,JJ., concur.