| People v Sanchez |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 06805 [175 AD3d 1567] |
| September 25, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Luis Sanchez, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Samuel R. Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew J.D'Emic, J.), rendered October 27, 2017, convicting him of assault in the second degree andassault in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings upfor review two orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing.
Ordered that upon the appeal from the judgment, so much of the orders of protection asdirected that they remain in effect until and including October 26, 2031, are vacated, as a matterof discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, KingsCounty, for a new determination of the duration of the orders of protection; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree andassault in the third degree. On appeal, the defendant contends, inter alia, that the sentenceimposed was excessive and that two orders of protection, issued at the time of sentencing, shouldbe vacated.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (seePeople v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
As the People correctly concede, the duration of the orders of protection issued at the time ofsentencing exceeded the maximum time limit set forth in CPL 530.12 (5). Accordingly, wevacate so much of the orders of protection as directed that they remain in effect until andincluding October 26, 2031, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a newdetermination of the duration of the orders of protection (see People v Gooding, 174 AD3d 642 [2019]; People v Ramos, 164 AD3d 922,923-924 [2018]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel iswithout merit. Viewed in totality, the record reflects that defense counsel provided meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and we declineto review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Dillon, J.P., Austin, Roman,Maltese and Christopher, JJ., concur.