Court Opinion

ID: 9911341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 20:07:50.858715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:29.213331
License: Public Domain

People v Key (2023 NY Slip Op 06492)

People v Key

2023 NY Slip Op 06492

Decided on December 19, 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: December 19, 2023

Before: Kapnick, J.P., Kennedy, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ. 

Ind. No. 725/17 Appeal No. 1248 Case No. 2019-6067 

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

Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Nathan R. Brown of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Jonathan Sclar of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Shari R. Michels, J., at plea; Julio Rodriguez III, J., at sentencing), rendered September 11, 2018, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of three 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, 1096 [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. The waiver forecloses review of defendant's challenge to the issuance of an order of protection (see People v Frasqueri, 193 AD3d 464 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 965 [2021]).
Regardless of whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal, defendant's claim that the final order of protection was procedurally defective requires preservation (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]; People v Bryant, 132 AD3d 502 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1086 [2015]), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record sufficiently reflected the reasons for the imposition of the order of protection (see People v Gonzalez, 178 AD3d 440 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 941 [2020]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: December 19, 2023