Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rayshawn K. WHITFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ) and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the imposition of an order of protection for a duration longer than that permitted by CPL 530.13 (former [4] ), effective at the time of the commission of the crimes, violates the ex post facto prohibition in article I (§ 10[1] ) of the U.S. Constitution, and we decline to address that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see People v. Ruz, 70 N.Y.2d 942, 524 N.Y.S.2d 668, 519 N.E.2d 614; People v. Lyday, 241 A.D.2d 950, 661 N.Y.S.2d 325).
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in fixing the duration of the order of protection based on all of the counts of which defendant was convicted, rather than on only those counts involving the subject of the order of protection, i.e., the two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. We exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ), and we conclude that the eight-year duration of the order of protection must commence upon the expiration of the consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment imposed on those counts (see People v. Harris, 285 A.D.2d 980, 727 N.Y.S.2d 233; People v. Nunez, 267 A.D.2d 1050, 700 N.Y.S.2d 637, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 905, 707 N.Y.S.2d 390, 728 N.E.2d 989). We therefore modify the judgment by providing that the order of protection shall expire on March 24, 2024.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by providing that the order of protection shall expire on March 24, 2024 and as modified the judgment is affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 25, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)