People v. Newman
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law issue concerning the permissible duration of a post-sentencing order of protection.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, convicted the defendant of attempted assault in the second degree upon her guilty plea, imposed a definite sentence of 364 days' incarceration, and issued an order of protection lasting through January 3, 2033.
The Appellate Division modified only the order of protection by shortening its expiration date from January 3, 2033, to January 2, 2032; the judgment of conviction was otherwise affirmed.
The duration exceeded the maximum allowed by CPL 530.13(4)(A) [sets the maximum duration of an order of protection issued at sentencing]. The court also held that preservation did not bar review because the sentencing court did not announce the order's duration at the plea or sentencing, leaving the defendant with no practical opportunity to object.
Background
Tameka Newman pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the second degree in Kings County. At sentencing on January 3, 2024, the court imposed a definite jail sentence of 364 days and issued an order of protection. On appeal, Newman challenged the length of that order of protection.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court entered judgment convicting Newman of attempted assault in the second degree on her guilty plea and imposed sentence. It also issued an order of protection that was set to remain in effect until and including January 3, 2033.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the challenge to the order of protection was reviewable despite no objection below, because the sentencing court never announced the duration of the order during the plea or sentencing proceedings. Applying CPL 530.13(4)(A)(i) [sets the maximum duration of an order of protection issued at sentencing], the court determined that the maximum permissible period was eight years from the date the definite sentence was imposed. The court therefore modified the order of protection so that it expires on January 2, 2032, and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that a defendant may challenge an excessive order of protection on appeal without preservation when the sentencing court did not disclose the order's duration in time for an objection. It also confirms that, where a defendant receives a definite sentence, the duration of a sentencing order of protection must comply strictly with the statutory maximum under CPL 530.13(4)(A) [sets the maximum duration of an order of protection issued at sentencing].
A criminal order of protection cannot extend beyond the statutory maximum, and if the sentencing court fails to announce its duration, an appellate court may correct the error even absent a contemporaneous objection.