People v Grant
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law issue concerning whether an order of protection issued at sentencing lasted longer than the statute permits.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, convicted Lamar Grant of burglary in the third degree on his guilty plea, imposed sentence, and issued an order of protection that was to remain in effect through January 7, 2036.
The Appellate Division vacated only the portion of the order of protection setting its expiration date and remitted for a new determination of duration; the judgment of conviction was otherwise affirmed.
The order's duration exceeded the maximum allowed under CPL 530.13(4)(A)(ii) [governing the maximum duration of criminal orders of protection issued at sentencing] because the sentencing court did not account for Grant's jail-time credit when calculating the expiration date. The issue was reviewable even without an objection because the court did not announce the duration during the plea or sentencing proceedings.
Background
Lamar Grant pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree in Supreme Court, Kings County. At sentencing, the court also issued an order of protection. On appeal, Grant argued that the order of protection was too long because the court failed to credit the jail time he had already served when calculating how long the order could remain in effect.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court entered a judgment on January 8, 2024, convicting Grant upon his guilty plea and imposing sentence. It also issued an order of protection set to remain in effect until and including January 7, 2036.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that preservation did not bar review because the duration of the order of protection was not announced at the plea or sentencing proceedings, leaving Grant with no practical chance to object. The court further held that the expiration date exceeded the statutory maximum because it failed to take jail-time credit into account. It therefore vacated the portion of the order fixing the end date, remitted the matter to Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the proper duration, and directed that the order remain in effect pending that determination.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that when a sentencing court calculates the duration of an order of protection, it must include the defendant's jail-time credit in determining the maximum permissible expiration date under CPL 530.13(4)(A)(ii). It also confirms that a defendant need not preserve an objection to the duration where the court never announced that duration in open court.
A criminal order of protection issued at sentencing cannot extend beyond the statutory maximum, and the calculation must reflect jail-time credit. If the court does not state the order's duration at plea or sentencing, the defendant may still challenge the duration on appeal.