People v. Guidice
Decision Date | 27 May 2020 |
Docket Number | Ind. No. 495/18,2019–00027 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. David GUIDICE, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Elena Tomaro and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Richard Ambro, J.), rendered November 16, 2018, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts) and criminal contempt in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant challenges the issuance of an order of protection in favor of his children, effective until and including November 16, 2034. The defendant's challenges to the order of protection survive his waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of conviction (see People v. Kumar, 127 A.D.3d 882, 4 N.Y.S.3d 900 ; People v. Cedeno, 107 A.D.3d 734, 965 N.Y.S.2d 887 ), and may be raised on appeal from the judgment of conviction (see People v. Smith, 15 N.Y.3d 669, 674, 917 N.Y.S.2d 614, 942 N.E.2d 1039 ; People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 312, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13 ).
However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the issuance of the order of protection with respect to his biological children was proper since they were members of the victim's family and household (see CPL 530.13[4] ; People v. May, 138 A.D.3d 1146, 1147, 30 N.Y.S.3d 327 ; People v. Sabo, 117 A.D.3d 1089, 986 N.Y.S.2d 232 ; People v. Warren, 280 A.D.2d 75, 721 N.Y.S.2d 152 ). The defendant did not request a hearing with respect to the order of protection. The County Court noted that he could seek appropriate parental access by an order of the Family Court or the Supreme Court, and the order of protection so provides.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Tumolo
...mother and siblings was proper since they were members of the victim's family and household (see id. § 530.13[4] ; People v. Guidice, 183 A.D.3d 913, 913, 122 N.Y.S.3d 916 ; see also People v. May, 138 A.D.3d 1146, 1147, 30 N.Y.S.3d 327 ). The defendant's contention that the County Court er......
-
People v. Thomas
...by CPL 530.13(4), and that the court erred in setting the duration of the order, survive his appeal waiver (see People v. Guidice, 183 A.D.3d 913, 122 N.Y.S.3d 916 ; People v. Carryl, 169 A.D.3d at 820, 93 N.Y.S.3d 703 ; People v. Appiarius, 160 A.D.3d 889, 73 N.Y.S.3d 899 ). However, those......
-
People v. Tumolo
...mother and siblings was proper since they were members of the victim's family and household (see id. § 530.13[4]; People v Guidice, 183 A.D.3d 913, 913; see also People v May, 138 A.D.3d 1146, 1147). The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in issuing the orders of protection,......
-
People v. Tumolo
... ... Contrary to the defendant's ... contention, the issuance of the orders of protection with ... respect to the victim's mother and siblings was proper ... since they were members of the victim's family and ... household (see id. § 530.13[4]; People v ... Guidice, 183 A.D.3d 913, 913; see also People v ... May, 138 A.D.3d 1146, 1147). The defendant's ... contention that the County Court erred in issuing the orders ... of protection, because it failed to state the reasons ... therefor on the record, is unpreserved for appellate review ... ...