PEOPLE v. FELTON (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Deshaun FELTON, appellant.

2024–00435

Decided: October 07, 2026

ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., HELEN VOUTSINAS, DONNA–MARIE E. GOLIA, JAMES P. MCCORMACK, JJ.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Samantha Jerabek of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Julian Joiris and Leonard Joblove of counsel; Hannah Thomas on the brief), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Evelyn Laporte, J., at plea; Miriam Cyrulnik, J., at sentence), rendered January 2, 2024, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

ORDERED that upon the appeal from the judgment, so much of the order of protection as directed that it remain in effect until and including January 1, 2042, is vacated, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the duration of the order of protection consistent herewith; and it is further,

ORDERED that pending a new determination as to the duration of the order of protection, the order of protection shall remain in effect; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the defendant did not object to the duration of an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing as failing to credit him for jail time served, he had no practical ability to register a timely objection on this ground, since the Supreme Court did not announce the duration of the order of protection at either the plea or sentencing proceedings (see People v. Dickey, 246 AD3d 757, 758; People v. Velasquez, 239 AD3d 1004, 1005). Thus, the rule of preservation does not apply (see People v. Velasquez, 239 AD3d at 1005). The People do not dispute the defendant's contention that the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing did not credit the defendant for jail time served. Thus, we vacate so much of the order of protection as directed that it remain in effect until and including January 1, 2042, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the order of protection (see People v. Sosa, 246 AD3d 943, 943; People v. Carrington, 238 AD3d 893, 894). Pending a new determination as to the duration of the order of protection, the order of protection shall remain in effect.

IANNACCI, J.P., VOUTSINAS, GOLIA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network