People v Sosa
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal procedure—duration of orders of protection must credit jail time served; preservation of objections when the duration is not announced on the record.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, accepted Sosa’s guilty plea to attempted robbery in the third degree, imposed sentence, and issued an order of protection set to expire July 6, 2034, without announcing its duration at the plea or sentencing and without crediting jail time served.
Only the portion of the order of protection setting its expiration (duration) was vacated and remitted for recalculation.
Because the duration was not announced at the plea or sentencing, Sosa had no practical ability to object, so the preservation rule [requires timely objection in the trial court to preserve an issue for appellate review] did not apply; additionally, the order failed to credit jail time served, a point the People did not dispute.
Background
Sosa pled guilty to attempted robbery in the third degree in Supreme Court, Kings County. At sentencing, the court issued an order of protection that, on its face, ran until July 6, 2034. The court did not state the order’s duration during the plea or sentencing proceedings, and the written order did not reflect credit for time Sosa had already spent in jail. Sosa appealed, challenging the duration of the order of protection.
Lower Court Decision
The trial court entered judgment on Sosa’s guilty plea and imposed sentence, including an order of protection expiring July 6, 2034. The duration was not placed on the record at the plea or sentencing, and the order did not credit jail time served.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division vacated so much of the order of protection as set its expiration date and remitted for a new determination of duration that properly credits jail time served. It held the preservation rule did not bar review because the duration was never announced on the record. The order of protection remains in effect pending recalculation, and the judgment of conviction is otherwise affirmed.
Legal Significance
Confirms that when a sentencing court does not announce the duration of an order of protection on the record, a defendant’s challenge to that duration is not barred by the preservation rule, and the duration must be recalculated to account for jail-time credit. Aligns with People v Delaurentis and People v Newman on remittal for recalculation and with People v Gonzalez on the preservation exception.
An order of protection’s duration must credit jail time served, and if the duration is not announced at sentencing, a defendant may challenge it on appeal without preservation; the remedy is to vacate the duration and remit for a proper recalculation while leaving the order otherwise in effect.