Court Opinion

ID: 9889940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 19:08:34.193663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:52.110261
License: Public Domain

People v Fletcher (2023 NY Slip Op 05147)

People v Fletcher

2023 NY Slip Op 05147

Decided on October 11, 2023

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 11, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI
PAUL WOOTEN
LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

2022-05639
 (Ind. No. 70380/22)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vBrian Fletcher, appellant.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Mariana Zelig of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the memorandum), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Toni M. Cimino, J.), rendered July 5, 2022, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review two orders of protection issued in favor of Erika Jara and Ramon Gomez, respectively, at the time of sentencing.
ORDERED that upon the appeal from the judgment, the orders of protection issued in favor of Erika Jara and Ramon Gomez, respectively, at the time of sentencing are vacated, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly issued orders of protection in favor of Erika Jara and Ramon Gomez is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316-318), but we nevertheless reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. As the defendant correctly contends, the court had no authority to issue orders of protection in favor of those individuals, as they were neither victims of nor witnesses to the crime to which the defendant pleaded guilty (see CPL 530.13[4]; People v Gonzalez, 217 AD3d 965, 966; People v Rosales, 198 AD3d 988, 989; People v Ortiz, 183 AD3d 918).
Accordingly, we vacate the orders of protection issued in favor of Erika Jara and Ramon Gomez, respectively, at the time of sentencing.
CONNOLLY, J.P., IANNACCI, WOOTEN and WAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court