People v. Waldropt

Opinion

People v Waldropt

2026 NY Slip Op 04963

August 12, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

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

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

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Shynice Waldropt, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 12, 2026

2022-08483, (Ind. No. 849/20)

Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.

Valerie Brathwaite Nelson

Barry E. Warhit

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Joseph Z. Amsel, New York, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Kevin C. King and Jared A. Chester of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Teresa K. Corrigan, J.), rendered March 24, 2022, convicting her of assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that her plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, as she did not move to withdraw her plea or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court (see People v Perrella, 188 AD3d 1263, 1263), and the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, because the plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on the defendant's guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of her plea (see People v Palladino, 140 AD3d 1194, 1194). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit (see People v Perrella, 188 AD3d at 1263). Here, the record as a whole affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and constitutes a valid waiver of her constitutional rights under Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238; see People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052, 1055; People v Harrison, 138 AD3d 757, 757-758).

The defendant's challenge to the duration of the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing is unpreserved for appellate review, since she did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the order of protection on this ground (see People v Crosby, 230 AD3d 597, 598; People v Holmes, 206 AD3d 761, 762). Under the circumstances, we decline to reach this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a]; People v Narmetov, 244 AD3d 1136, 1136).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). The defendant's contention that her sentence violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Trigueros-Hernandez, 243 AD3d 817, 818) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Zitrenbaum, 231 AD3d 1064, 1064).

LASALLE, P.J., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., [*2]concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court