People v Kennedy (Melvin)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Kennedy (Melvin) 2020 NY Slip Op 50375(U) Decided on March 30, 2020 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 30, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Edmead, Torres, JJ.
571049/18

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Melvin Kennedy, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Bahaati E. Pitt, J.), rendered August 21, 2018, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted failure to register as a sex offender, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Bahaati E. Pitt, J.), rendered August 21, 2018, affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal. The court's oral colloquy, taken together with the written waiver, which defendant discussed with counsel, signed in open court and acknowledged understanding, established that the waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1096 [2016]; see also People v Thomas, __ NY3d __ , 2019 NY Slip Op 08545 [2019]). To the extent that defendant's constitutional challenge to Correction Law § 168-f(4) survives his guilty plea and waiver of appeal, it is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, defendant's claim that Correction Law § 168-f(4), which requires a sex offender to register within 10 days after any change of address, is unconstitutional with respect to transient or homeless individuals, is unavailing (see People v Stedge, 135 AD3d 1170 [2016]; People v Herman, 102 AD3d 811 [2013], lv denied 20 NY3d 1099 [2013]; see also People v Lanham, 177 AD3d 637 [2019]).


THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 30, 2020

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.