People v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · 2025 · Criminal Law

2025 NY Slip Op 02164 (2025)

Updated July 31, 2026

crimlawDouble Jeopardy Clausemultiple punishmentsorder of protectioncriminal contempt in the second degreetime servedsentencingformal break in proceedings

Facts

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in the second degree. At sentencing, the court stated that the sentence was time served and immediately afterward issued a final order of protection. On appeal, defendant argued that issuing the order of protection after announcing time served violated the Double Jeopardy Clause's prohibition on multiple punishments. He also argued that the order was invalid because the court did not state on the record its reasons for issuing it under CPL 530.13(4).

Issue

Did the sentencing court violate the Double Jeopardy Clause's multiple-punishments prohibition by issuing a final order of protection immediately after stating that defendant's sentence was time served? Also, could defendant obtain appellate review of his claim that the court failed to state on the record its reasons for issuing the order of protection under CPL 530.13(4)?

Rule

A final order of protection is not a "punishment" within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. In addition, sentencing is not finished for multiple-punishments purposes unless the sentence has been imposed, entered, and served, and there has been a formal break in the proceedings from which one can logically and reasonably conclude that sentencing had finished. A claim that the court failed to state on the record its reasons for issuing an order of protection under CPL 530.13(4) must be preserved for appellate review.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Manhattan, Devin Cole pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal contempt. At sentencing, the judge announced, "The sentence is time served," and in the next breath signed a final order of protection for the complainant before the hearing ended.

If Devin argues on appeal that the order of protection imposed a second punishment in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The claim should be rejected. The governing rule is that a final order of protection is not a "punishment" within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. In addition, where the court issues the order immediately after announcing time served and there has been no formal break in the proceedings from which one could logically and reasonably conclude sentencing had finished, sentencing is not yet complete for multiple-punishments purposes.