People v. Lilley
| Citation | 917 N.Y.S.2d 494,81 A.D.3d 1448 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bobby L. LILLEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 18 February 2011 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Peter J. Digiorgio, Jr., Utica, for Defendant-Appellant.
Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Aaron D. Carr of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50 [3] ), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid and that County Court impermissibly enhanced his sentence by issuing a stay away order of protection in favor of the victim ( see generally CPL 530.13 [4] ). We note at the outset that it is of no moment whether defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. Such a waiver, even if valid, would not preclude our consideration of defendant's contention concerning the order of protection, because such an order was not a part of the plea agreement, nor was such an order discussed during the plea colloquy ( see generally People v. Doris, 64 A.D.3d 813, 881 N.Y.S.2d 674, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 796, 887 N.Y.S.2d 545, 916 N.E.2d 440). Nevertheless, we conclude that defendant's contention with respect to the order of protection is without merit. "An order of protection may properly be issued independent of a plea agreement" ( People v. Smith, 294 A.D.2d 916, 916, 741 N.Y.S.2d 476) and, although such an order is issued at sentencing, it is not a part of defendant's sentence ( see People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 316, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13; People v. Dixon, 16 A.D.3d 517, 792 N.Y.S.2d 110). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court had the authority to issue the order of protection in the absence of the victim's consent ( see People v. Monacelli, 299 A.D.2d 916, 750 N.Y.S.2d 690, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 617, 757 N.Y.S.2d 828, 787 N.E.2d 1174).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. May
...waiver (see People v. Kumar, 127 A.D.3d 882, 883, 4 N.Y.S.3d 900 ; People v. Sabo, 117 A.D.3d 1089, 986 N.Y.S.2d 232 ; People v. Lilley, 81 A.D.3d 1448, 917 N.Y.S.2d 494 ). However, the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court should not have i......
- People v. Cohens
-
People v. Walker
...favor of the victim is "unduly stringent" (see People v. Fontaine, 144 A.D.3d 1658, 1658–1659, 42 N.Y.S.3d 493 ; cf. People v. Lilley, 81 A.D.3d 1448, 1448, 917 N.Y.S.2d 494, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 860, 932 N.Y.S.2d 25, 956 N.E.2d 806 ). In any event, although the victim asked the court to is......
-
People v. Navarro
...argument, the Court has the authority to issue an order of protection, in the absence of the victim's consent. People v. Lilley , 81 A.D.3d 1448, 917 N.Y.S.2d 494 (4th Dept. 2011). Such is the case even where the protected party has actually refrained from consent. People v. Monacelli , 299......