People v Villanueva (Lunasol)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Villanueva (Lunasol) 2015 NY Slip Op 51345(U) Decided on September 18, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 18, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
13-235

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Lunasol Villanueva, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J. at plea; Joanne D. Quinones, J. at re-plea and sentence), rendered January 11, 2013, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Lynn R. Kotler, J. at plea; Joanne D. Quinones, J. at re-plea and sentencing), rendered January 11, 2013, affirmed.

Although defendant has appealed from the judgment of conviction, the only issue raised relates to her request to expunge her DNA record from the State DNA identification index. This issue, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court, since the proper procedure for making such a request is an application to either "the court in which the [now-vacated] judgment of conviction was originally entered" (Executive Law § 995-c[9]) or to the Division of Criminal Justice Services (see 9 NYCRR 6193.4). In this connection, we note that the People represented at oral argument of this appeal that they consent to the expungement of defendant's DNA record.

Since this matter is properly before us as an appeal from a judgment of conviction, we do not dismiss the appeal, but affirm on the ground that no reviewable issue has been raised (see People v Smith, 69 AD3d 450 [2010], affd 15 NY3d 669 [2010]).


THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 18, 2015

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.