People v. Carrington

2025 NY Slip Op 02929 · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · May 14, 2025 · No. Ind. No. 1378/20

Summary

This New York Appellate Division decision reviews a trial court's imposition of an order of protection following a guilty plea for second-degree assault. The court found that the order's duration exceeded the statutory maximum permitted under Criminal Procedure Law § 530.13(4)(A) and vacated that portion of the order. While the defendant failed to preserve his objection to the reasons for issuing the order, the court exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction to address the unlawful duration due to the trial court's failure to announce it at sentencing. The underlying conviction was affirmed, and the matter was remitted for a new determination of the order's duration.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
IANNACCI, J.P.; WOOTEN; WARHIT; GOLIA, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
May 14, 2025
Docket number
Ind. No. 1378/20
Procedural posture
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County convicting the appellant of assault in the second degree and imposing an order of protection at sentencing.
Standard of review
Preservation of error; appellate court exercised interest‑of‑justice jurisdiction.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Rodney Carrington v. People of the State of New York
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate procedurepreservation of errorstandard of reviewcriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendant’s contention that the order of protection should be vacated for lack of a stated reason is preserved for appellate review.
  2. Whether the duration of the order of protection exceeds the statutory maximum and must be vacated.

Holdings

  1. The defendant’s contention is unpreserved because he failed to object to the order of protection at sentencing or raise the issue before the trial court.
  2. The duration of the order of protection exceeded the maximum period permissible under CPL 530.13(4)(A); therefore the appellate court vacates that portion and remands for a new determination consistent with the statute.

Factual background

Rodney Carrington pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree and was sentenced by the Supreme Court, Queens County. At sentencing the court issued an order of protection that remained in effect until March 15, 2033, a duration exceeding the maximum allowed under CPL 530.13(4)(A). The defendant did not object to the order or its duration at sentencing.

Procedural history

The trial court sentenced the defendant to an order of protection lasting until March 15, 2033. The defendant appealed, arguing the order should be vacated because the trial court failed to state reasons and the duration exceeded statutory limits. The appellate division reviewed the preservation issue and the statutory maximum.

Remand instructions

Vacate the portion of the order of protection that remains in effect until March 15, 2033, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the duration consistent with CPL 530.13(4)(A).

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…