STATE v. WILLIAMS

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal ( see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248). The record establishes that defendant clearly understood that he was making an unrestricted waiver.

Defendant also claims that his sentence was defective in that a provision for a period of postrelease supervision was contained in the court's commitment sheet but not in its oral pronouncement of sentence. In this case, the duration of the required period of postrelease supervision was within the court's discretion ( see Penal Law § 70.45 [f]). Although the court promised defendant a three-year period, and the court clerk included that provision on the commitment sheet, the court did not address postrelease supervision at sentencing. In these circumstances, imposition of such a term was not ministerial. Furthermore, we conclude that imposition of a discretionary sentencing provision subsequent to the court's oral sentence is a defect that survives a waiver of the right to appeal ( compare People v Thomas, 35 AD3d 192, lv denied 8 NY3d 850).

Defendant's claim that the duration of an order of protection was incorrectly calculated is unreviewable on the present record ( see People v Montilla, 37 AD3d 281).