- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- People v. Newman
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03458
Background
Defendant Tameka Newman was convicted in Supreme Court, Kings County (Herbert J. Moses, J.), upon her guilty plea, of attempted assault in the second degree and sentenced to a definite sentence of 364 days’ incarceration. At sentencing, the court issued an order of protection directed to remain in effect until January 3, 2033. The court did not announce the duration during either the plea or sentencing proceedings. Defendant appealed, challenging the order of protection duration.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order of protection by reducing its expiration date from January 3, 2033 to January 2, 2032, and otherwise affirmed. The Court first addressed preservation, holding that because the court did not announce the duration during the plea or sentencing, defendant had “no practical ability to register a timely objection on this ground,” and the preservation requirement therefore did not apply.
On the merits, the Court found the order of protection exceeded the maximum permissible period under CPL 530.13(4)(A). For a definite sentence of 364 days, the maximum order of protection duration is eight years from the date of imposition. The court’s order extending to January 3, 2033—approximately nine years—exceeded this statutory limit. The Court modified the order to expire on January 2, 2032, consistent with the eight-year maximum.
Takeaways
This decision addresses a recurring issue in criminal sentencing: the proper calculation of order of protection duration under CPL 530.13(4)(A). Courts must calculate the maximum duration based on the type and length of the sentence imposed, and errors in this calculation will be corrected on appeal even absent a timely objection below, because the defendant has no practical opportunity to object when the duration is not announced at sentencing. Defense counsel should always review orders of protection for compliance with statutory maximums.
Why It Matters
This case is particularly valuable for criminal defense appellate practitioners because it provides a clear path to correction of order of protection errors without regard to the preservation doctrine. When the sentencing court fails to announce the duration on the record, the defendant cannot be faulted for not objecting. The one-year reduction here demonstrates the practical significance of accurate calculation. Prosecutors and sentencing courts should double-check duration calculations against the specific statutory provision applicable to the defendant’s sentence type, as this is a frequent source of appellate modification.