The People v. Alfredo Marrero
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law issue concerning the duration of a sentencing order of protection and whether the defendant received credit for jail time served.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, convicted the defendant of criminal contempt in the first degree upon his guilty plea, imposed sentence, and issued an order of protection set to remain in effect through December 20, 2034.
The Appellate Division vacated only so much of the order of protection as fixed its expiration date through December 20, 2034, while otherwise affirming the judgment of conviction.
The duration of the order of protection did not credit the defendant for jail time served, and the preservation rule did not bar review because the Supreme Court did not announce the duration of the order of protection at the plea or sentencing proceedings, leaving the defendant no practical opportunity to object.
Background
Alfredo Marrero pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in the first degree in Supreme Court, Queens County. At sentencing, the court imposed sentence and issued an order of protection. On appeal, the defendant challenged the duration of that order of protection, arguing that it failed to account for jail time already served.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court rendered judgment on November 29, 2023, convicting the defendant upon his guilty plea and imposing sentence. It also issued an order of protection that was directed to remain in effect until and including December 20, 2034.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that review of the duration issue was not barred by lack of objection because the trial court never announced the duration of the order of protection at the plea or sentencing proceedings. Since the People did not dispute that the defendant was not credited for jail time served, the court vacated the portion of the order of protection setting the expiration date and remitted the matter to Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of its duration. The order of protection remains in effect pending that new determination, and the judgment was otherwise affirmed.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that a defendant may challenge the duration of an order of protection on appeal without preservation where the sentencing court gave no practical opportunity to object. It also confirms that the duration of a criminal order of protection must properly account for jail time served when calculated.
A sentencing order of protection can be partially vacated and recalculated when its expiration date fails to credit jail time served, especially where the defendant had no meaningful chance to object because the duration was never announced in open court.