People v Johnson
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law issue involving the scope of a sentencing court's authority to issue an order of protection.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, accepted the defendant's guilty plea to attempted robbery in the second degree, imposed sentence, and issued an order of protection that included M. L.
The Appellate Division vacated so much of the order of protection as was issued in favor of M. L., while otherwise affirming the judgment of conviction.
Although the challenge was unpreserved under CPL 470.05(2) [preservation requirement for appellate review], the Appellate Division reviewed it in the interest of justice under CPL 470.15(6)(a) [authorizes interest-of-justice review]. The court held that, under CPL 530.13(4) [authorizes criminal court orders of protection for victims or witnesses], the sentencing court lacked authority to issue an order of protection for M. L. because she was neither a victim of nor a witness to the crime to which the defendant pleaded guilty.
Background
Rasheem Johnson pleaded guilty in Supreme Court, Kings County, to attempted robbery in the second degree. At sentencing, the court issued an order of protection that included M. L. The defendant appealed from the judgment, which brought up for review the order of protection issued at sentencing.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court convicted the defendant upon his guilty plea to attempted robbery in the second degree, imposed sentence, and issued an order of protection in favor of, among others, M. L.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the sentencing court had no statutory authority to issue an order of protection in favor of M. L. because she was not a victim or witness to the offense of conviction. Exercising its interest-of-justice jurisdiction, the court vacated that portion of the order of protection and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that a criminal court's power to issue an order of protection at sentencing is limited by CPL 530.13(4) [authorizes criminal court orders of protection for victims or witnesses]. A protected person must fall within the statute's authorized categories, and an appellate court may correct an unauthorized order of protection even when the issue was not preserved, by using its interest-of-justice authority.
A sentencing court cannot include someone in an order of protection unless that person is statutorily eligible, such as a victim or witness to the offense. If the court exceeds that authority, the improper portion of the order may be vacated on appeal even if no objection was made below.