People v. Harley
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law issue concerning the permissible duration of post-sentencing orders of protection and whether jail time served must be credited when calculating their expiration date.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, convicted the defendant of burglary in the third degree upon his guilty plea, imposed sentence, and issued two orders of protection set to remain in effect until October 18, 2035.
The Appellate Division vacated only the portions of the two orders of protection that set their expiration date at October 18, 2035, while otherwise affirming the judgment of conviction.
The durational provisions exceeded the maximum period allowed under Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 530.13(4)(A) [limits the maximum duration of criminal orders of protection], because the defendant was not credited for jail time served. The preservation rule did not apply because the trial court did not announce the duration of the orders at the plea or sentencing proceedings, leaving the defendant with no practical opportunity to object.
Background
Jondell Harley pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree in Supreme Court, Queens County. At sentencing, the court also issued two orders of protection. On appeal, Harley challenged the duration of those orders, arguing that they were calculated without credit for the time he had already spent in jail, which caused them to extend beyond the lawful maximum.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court entered judgment on October 18, 2023, convicting Harley of burglary in the third degree upon his guilty plea and imposing sentence. It also issued two orders of protection that were to remain in effect until and including October 18, 2035.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that Harley's challenge to the duration of the orders of protection was reviewable despite the lack of an objection, because the sentencing court did not announce the duration at the plea or sentencing proceedings. Accepting the People's concession, the court found that the orders failed to credit jail time served and therefore exceeded the maximum duration permitted by CPL 530.13(4)(A). The court vacated the durational provisions and remitted the matter to Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the proper duration. Pending that determination, the orders of protection remain in effect. The judgment of conviction was otherwise affirmed.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that criminal orders of protection must be calculated within the statutory maximum after accounting for jail time served. It also confirms that a defendant's failure to object will not bar appellate review where the sentencing court did not disclose the duration of the orders in a way that gave the defendant a practical opportunity to challenge them.
When a sentencing court issues orders of protection, it must credit the defendant's jail time served in calculating the expiration date; otherwise, the durational provisions may be vacated even if no contemporaneous objection was made.