People v. Casanova

• Decision Date: 06 November 2019
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 318/16,2017–08779
• Citation: 177 A.D.3d 582,109 N.Y.S.3d 904 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Mario CASANOVA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

177 A.D.3d 582

109 N.Y.S.3d 904 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Mario CASANOVA, Appellant.

2017–08779

Ind. No. 318/16

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

Submitted - September 25, 2019

November 6, 2019

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY, for appellant.

Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Stephen J. Rooney, J.), rendered July 18, 2017, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Bradshaw , 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264–267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Ramos , 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 ; People v. Lopez , 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Stanley , 99 A.D.3d 955, 951 N.Y.S.2d 909 ).

The defendant's contention regarding the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Castillo , 174 A.D.3d 918, 103 N.Y.S.3d 317 ; People v. Gibson–Parish , 153 A.D.3d 1273, 59 N.Y.S.3d 702 ; People v. Bernardini , 142 A.D.3d 671, 36 N.Y.S.3d 827 ). However, the defendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 316–318, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13 ; People v. O'Connor , 136 A.D.3d 945, 945, 24 N.Y.S.3d 918 ), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. "[T]he better practice—and best use of judicial resources—is for a defendant seeking adjustment of [a final order of protection] to request relief from the issuing court in the first instance, resorting to the appellate courts only if necessary" ( People v. Nieves , 2 N.Y.3d at 317, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13 ).

MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.