People v. Etienne (Walkyn)
This text of 70 Misc. 3d 144(A) (People v. Etienne (Walkyn)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
People v Etienne (2021 NY Slip Op 50212(U)) [*1]
| People v Etienne (Walkyn) |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 50212(U) [70 Misc 3d 144(A)] |
| Decided on March 12, 2021 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on March 12, 2021
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
2018-918 K CR
against
Walkyn Etienne, Appellant.
Appellate Advocates (Ava C. Page of counsel), for appellant. Kings County District Attorney (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Keshia Espinal, J.), rendered April 13, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and imposed sentence. The appeal from the judgment of conviction brings up for review the propriety of a final order of protection.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.05 [1]), and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. A five-year final order of protection also issued. On appeal, defendant contends that this court should vacate the order of protection or, in the alternative, reduce the duration thereof as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice.
Defendant's contentions regarding the final order of protection are not preserved for appellate review, since he failed to object to the issuance of the order of protection, or to the duration thereof, at sentencing and did not move to vacate or modify the order in the Criminal Court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316-317 [2004]; People v Appiarius, [*2]160 AD3d 889 [2018]; People v Rodriguez, 157 AD3d 971 [2018]; People v Kornegay, 59 Misc 3d 134[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50489[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]), and we decline to reach this issue in the interest of justice (see People v Rodriguez, 157 AD3d 971).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
WESTON, J.P., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: March 12, 2021
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
70 Misc. 3d 144(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50212(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-etienne-walkyn-nyappterm-2021.