Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · 2025 · Criminal Law
Criminal LawDouble JeopardyOrders of ProtectionSentencingDouble Jeopardy Clausemultiple punishmentsorder of protectioncriminal contempt in the second degree
Facts
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in the second degree. At sentencing, the court stated that the sentence was time served and then immediately issued a final order of protection. On appeal, defendant argued that issuing the order after the sentence 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 as required by CPL 530.13(4).
Issue
Whether the trial court violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by issuing a final order of protection immediately after stating that defendant's sentence was time served. Also, whether the order of protection was invalid because the court failed to state on the record its reasons for issuing it 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 has not finished where there has not yet been a formal break in the proceedings from which one could logically and reasonably conclude that sentencing had ended. A claim that a 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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Manhattan, Derek Solis pleaded guilty to misdemeanor criminal contempt for violating a stay-away directive involving his former partner. At sentencing, the judge announced, "The sentence is 20 days, satisfied by time served," and in the same uninterrupted colloquy immediately added a two-year final order of protection.
Derek argues on appeal that the order of protection imposed a second punishment after the sentence had already been completed. How should the appellate court rule?
Explanation. The controlling rule is that a final order of protection is not a "punishment" within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The majority also reasoned that sentencing is not complete absent a formal break in the proceedings from which one could logically and reasonably conclude that sentencing had finished. Here, the judge moved directly from announcing time served to issuing the order in one continuous proceeding, so the double jeopardy challenge fails. (Derived from People v. Martin (n.d.).)