Opinion
2017–10897 2017–10898 2017–10899 2017–10900 S.C.I. Nos. 616/17, 617/17 Ind. Nos. 1711/14, 1797/14
02-02-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Tremaine DEVORE, appellant.
Warren S. Landau, Cedarhurst, NY, for appellant. Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Autumn S. Hughes of counsel), for respondent.
Warren S. Landau, Cedarhurst, NY, for appellant.
Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Autumn S. Hughes of counsel), for respondent.
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeals by the defendant from four judgments of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jerald S. Carter, J.), all rendered June 1, 2017, convicting him of burglary in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 616/17, burglary in the second degree under Superior Court Information No. 617/17, robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 1711/14, and robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 1797/14, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the duration of the orders of protection exceeded the maximum statutory duration because they failed to take into account the defendant's jail-time credit for the period he was incarcerated while the criminal actions were pending 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. Portillo, 196 A.D.3d 605, 606, 147 N.Y.S.3d 455 ). Moreover, "[b]ecause sentencing courts are in the best position to amend permanent orders of protection, the better practice—and best use of judicial resources—is for a defendant seeking adjustment of such an order 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 ). Under the circumstances presented, we decline to review the defendant's unpreserved contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v. Portillo, 196 A.D.3d at 606, 147 N.Y.S.3d 455 ; People v. DeRobertis, 191 A.D.3d 898, 138 N.Y.S.3d 919 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
LASALLE, P.J., CONNOLLY, IANNACCI and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.