People v. Christian

• Citation: 64 N.Y.S.3d 909 (Mem),156 A.D.3d 716
• Decision Date: 13 December 2017
• Docket Number: 2016–09710,S.C.I. No. 526/15
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lionel CHRISTIAN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

156 A.D.3d 716

64 N.Y.S.3d 909 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Lionel CHRISTIAN, appellant.

2016–09710

S.C.I. No. 526/15

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

Submitted October 12, 2017

December 13, 2017

Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy and W. Thomas Hughes of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), rendered August 15, 2016, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

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 art 6–C; hereinafter SORA). Although this contention survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Bernardini, 142 A.D.3d 671, 36 N.Y.S.3d 827 ; People v. Vere, 44 A.D.3d 690, 843 N.Y.S.2d 378 ; People v. Melio, 6 A.D.3d 552, 553, 775 N.Y.S.2d 346 ; People v. Hussain, 309 A.D.2d 818, 765 N.Y.S.2d 526 ), it is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea prior to the imposition of the sentence (see CPL 220.60[3] ; 440.10; People v. Bernardini, 142 A.D.3d at 671, 36 N.Y.S.3d 827 ; People v. Magnotta, 137 A.D.3d 1303, 27 N.Y.S.3d 403 ; People v. Holcombe, 116 A.D.3d 1063, 1064, 983 N.Y.S.2d 875 ; People v. Smith, 85 A.D.3d 1065, 925 N.Y.S.2d 864 ; People v. Torres, 54 A.D.3d 976, 977, 863 N.Y.S.2d 613 ; People v. Melio, 6 A.D.3d at 553, 775 N.Y.S.2d 346 ; People v. Hussain, 309 A.D.2d at 818, 765 N.Y.S.2d 526 ). In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v. Gravino, 14 N.Y.3d 546, 550, 902 N.Y.S.2d 851, 928 N.E.2d 1048 ; People v. Magnotta, 137 A.D.3d at 1303, 27 N.Y.S.3d 403 ; People v. Holcombe, 116 A.D.3d at 1064, 983 N.Y.S.2d 875 ; People v. Smith, 85 A.D.3d at 1065, 925 N.Y.S.2d 864 ; People v. Vere, 44 A.D.3d at 691, 843 N.Y.S.2d 378 ).

The defendant's contentions relating to his designation as a level two sex offender after a SORA hearing are not properly before this Court. The notice of appeal was limited to the judgment of conviction, and therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the order issued in the civil SORA proceeding (see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 571, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 ).

RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, LASALLE and BARROS, JJ., concur.