Court Opinion

ID: 9353734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 18:18:20.085261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:11:21.255838
License: Public Domain

People v Rivera (2023 NY Slip Op 00167)

People v Rivera

2023 NY Slip Op 00167

Decided on January 12, 2023

Appellate Division, First 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 and Entered: January 12, 2023

Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Singh, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ. 

SCI No. 2165/16 Appeal No. 17076 Case No. 2018-5391 

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
vJuan Rivera, Defendant-Appellant.

Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Rebecca D. Martin of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (T. Charles Won of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Shari R. Michels, J.), rendered September 13, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545 [2019], cert denied 589 US —&mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]; People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094 [2016]). The combination of the court's oral colloquy with defendant and the detailed written waiver that he signed after consultation with counsel satisfied the requirements of a valid waiver. This waiver forecloses review of defendant's excessive sentence claim and his challenge to the issuance of an order of protection (see People v Gonzalez, 178 AD3d 440 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 941 [2020]).
Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, he failed to preserve his challenge to the order of protection (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]), despite opportunities to do so at the plea and sentencing proceedings, and we decline to review his claim in the interest of justice. We also perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: January 12, 2023