PEOPLE v. SOTO (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Naita Semaj, J., at plea;  Jeffrey Rosenblueth, J., at sentencing), rendered March 7, 2023, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of five years, as a second violent felony offender, on the weapon possession count and 2 to 4 years, as a second felony offender, on the burglary count, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to vacate the provision of the order of protection solely to the extent that the order directs that it remain in effect until March 7, 2036, and to remand the matter for a new determination of the expiration of the duration of the order, and otherwise affirmed.

Although defendant's challenge to the duration of the order of protection is unpreserved (see People v. Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315–317 [2004] ), we reach the issue in the interest of justice.  As the People concede, the expiration date of the order of protection is incorrect because it was calculated based on the expiration date of his sentence on the gun possession conviction, instead of the sentence on the attempted burglary conviction upon which the order of protection was based (see CPL 530.13[4][A][ii];  People v. Kalb, 91 AD3d 1359, 1360 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 963 [2012] ).  The expiration date was also incorrect because it was calculated without taking into account the jail time credit to which defendant is entitled (see e.g. People v. Gonzalez, 236 AD3d 529, 529 [1st Dept 2025];  People v. Kuchma, 230 AD3d 1074, 1075 [1st Dept 2024] ).  Pending a new determination, the order of protection shall remain in effect.