People v. McDonald
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law — duration of a post-judgment order of protection
After accepting a guilty plea to burglary in the second degree, the Supreme Court issued a final order of protection in favor of the complainant and a witness, set to expire on October 5, 2035.
The portion of the order of protection setting its expiration date (October 5, 2035).
The duration exceeded the statutory maximum under New York Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 530.13(4)(A) [sets the maximum permissible duration of post-judgment orders of protection in non-family offense cases], a point the People conceded.
Background
Ricardo McDonald pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree in Supreme Court, Kings County. At sentencing, the court issued a final order of protection in favor of the complainant and a witness, stating it would remain in effect until October 5, 2035. On appeal, McDonald challenged the duration of the order of protection as exceeding the cap in CPL 530.13(4)(A) [sets the maximum permissible duration of post-judgment orders of protection in non-family offense cases]. The Appellate Division held that the issue was properly reviewable on appeal.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, accepted the guilty plea and imposed sentence, issuing a final order of protection for the complainant and a witness through October 5, 2035.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division vacated only so much of the order of protection as set its expiration date, holding that it exceeded the statutory maximum under CPL 530.13(4)(A). The court remitted for a new determination of the order’s duration consistent with the statute, directed that the existing order remain in effect pending recalculation, and otherwise affirmed the judgment of conviction.
Legal Significance
Confirms that appellate courts will vacate and remit orders of protection whose durations exceed the statutory cap in CPL 530.13(4)(A), even when the underlying conviction is affirmed, and that the issue is properly reviewable on direct appeal.
Orders of protection must comply with the duration limits in CPL 530.13(4)(A); excessive terms will be vacated and recalculated, while the conviction may otherwise be affirmed and the order left in place pending correction.