People v. Bernardini

• Decision Date: 24 August 2016
• Citation: 36 N.Y.S.3d 827 (Mem),142 A.D.3d 671,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05869
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mark P. BERNARDINI, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

142 A.D.3d 671
36 N.Y.S.3d 827 (Mem)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05869

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Mark P. BERNARDINI, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Aug. 24, 2016.

Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.

James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Laurie Sapakoff and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.

142 A.D.3d 671

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered February 19, 2014, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree and forcible touching, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

36 N.Y.S.3d 828

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 341–342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ).

The defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because the Supreme Court did not adequately inform him of the consequences of his plea on a determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law article 6–C). Although this contention survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ), it is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea

142 A.D.3d 672

or otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court (see People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 726–727, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877 ; People v. Holcombe, 116 A.D.3d 1063, 1064, 983 N.Y.S.2d 875 ; People v. Beckers, 94 A.D.3d 774, 775, 941 N.Y.S.2d 515 ). We decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant's contentions...