In People v. C, the defendant, SC, pleaded guilty to criminal trespass in the third degree, a class B misdemeanor, in satisfaction of multiple initial charges including robbery, assault, criminal contempt, and harassment. As part of the sentence, the court issued a full order of protection, set to expire on July 21, 2027. The primary issue on appeal was whether the duration of the order of protection exceeded the statutory limits.
A key legal principle in this case was the defendant’s ability to challenge the validity of the order of protection, even after entering a guilty plea. The Appellate Term, Second Department, noted that such challenges are permitted, citing precedent that established this right. Although C did not object to the length of the order at sentencing, the court recognized that this was because the duration was not announced during the proceeding, making it impossible for him to raise a timely objection.
Upon review, the AT2 found that the order of protection exceeded the permissible duration under CPL 530.12 (5) (C). Under this statute, an order of protection related to a conviction for a class B misdemeanor cannot extend beyond two years from either the date of sentencing or the expiration of the maximum term of imprisonment imposed. Since C had served a 60-day sentence back in 2022, the appellate court ruled that the order’s 2027 expiration date far exceeded the statutory maximum, warranting vacatur.
They afforded C some protection there, no?
# # #
DECISION