Opinion
13504 SCI No. 2302/18 Case No. 2019-1964
04-06-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dante FRASQUERI, Defendant–Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Beth R. Kublin of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Beth R. Kublin of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Oing, Moulton, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret W. Martin, J. at plea; Laurence E. Busching, J. at sentencing), rendered November 28, 2018, convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one to three years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal ( see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020] ; People v. Bryant, 28 N.Y.3d 1094, 1096, 45 N.Y.S.3d 335, 68 N.E.3d 60 [2016] ), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim and his challenge to the issuance of an order of protection ( People v. Gonzalez, 178 A.D.3d 440, 111 N.Y.S.3d 171 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 941, 124 N.Y.S.3d 292, 147 N.E.3d 562 [2020] ). The combination of the court's oral colloquy with defendant and the detailed written waiver that he signed after consultation with counsel satisfied the requirements of a valid waiver.
Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, he failed to preserve his challenges to his order of protection ( see People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 315–317, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13 [2004] ; People v. Gonzalez, 178 A.D.3d at 440, 111 N.Y.S.3d 171 ), despite an opportunity to do so at sentencing, and we decline to review these claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find them unavailing ( see id. ). We also perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We decline to address the additional claim raised for the first time at oral argument.