In People v. EC, EC was convicted of assault in the third degree after pleading guilty. At the time of sentencing, the Richmond County Supreme Court issued an order of protection. EV later contended that the order should be vacated because the court did not state the reasons for issuing it on the record, as required by CPL 530.12(5).
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, was of the view EC's argument regarding the order of protection was unpreserved for appellate review. He had failed to object to the order at sentencing or raise the issue before the court, which was necessary to preserve such a contention for appeal. That procedural oversight meant that the appellate court could not review the issue in the interest of justice.
The AD2 thus affirmed the judgment, emphasizing that the proper procedure for a defendant seeking adjustment of final orders of protection is to request relief from the issuing court initially, resorting to appellate courts only if necessary. This approach ensures judicial resources are used efficiently and issues are addressed at the appropriate level.
Was there no other protection there?
# # #
DECISION