People v. ChildresPeople v. Childres
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by reducing the period of postrelease supervision imposed for sexual abuse in the first degree to a period of three years and as modified the judgment is affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, rape in the first degree (
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Although there were minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim concerning her statements to the police four years prior to the trial, it was for the court, as the trier of fact, to determine issues of credibility, and we see no basis for disturbing its credibility determinations (see generally People v Kelley, 46 AD3d 1329, 1330 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 813 [2008]). In any event, those “complained of inconsistencies did not relate to whether the alleged sexual conduct occurred” (People v Raymo, 19 AD3d 727, 728 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 793 [2005]).
We agree with defendant, however, that the sentence imposed on the count of sexual abuse in the first degree is illegal insofar as it includes a five-year period of postrelease supervision for a class D violent felony offense (see
Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in setting the duration of the order of protection (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see People v Sterrett, 53 AD3d 1098 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 858 [2008]).
Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.