On this proceeding, a man filed an appeal from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal contempt in the first degree and second degree, upon his plea of guilty.
The offense happened on the last quarter of 2004 when the man assaulted his former girlfriend on several occasions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he broke into his girlfriend’s apartment, repeatedly harassed the woman and stalked her in violation of temporary orders of protection. Consequently, the man was charged in two separate accusations with multiple crimes, including burglary in the second degree, attempted assault in the third degree, criminal contempt in the first degree and second degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree, stalking in the fourth degree, and menacing in the second degree. Afterwards, the separate accusations were consolidated. The man also agreed to plead guilty to burglary and criminal contempt. Based on records, in exchange of the man’s claim, the Supreme Court promised him that if he completed the treatment alternatives to street crimes drug program they will leave his plea to burglary in the second degree and sentence him to concurrent terms of five years’ probation for criminal contempt in the first degree and second degree. However, the Supreme Court warned the man that if he failed to complete drug treatment, his plea to burglary in the second degree would stand, and he would be sentenced to a determinate term of seven years of imprisonment and a period of five years of post release supervision for that offense.
The man then acknowledged that he understood the arrangement. The man give up his right to a jury trial, his right to cross- examine witnesses, and his right to testify on his own behalf if he wished to do so. Immediately after the man acknowledged that he was giving up his rights, the Supreme Court briefly addressed the issue of a waiver of the right to appeal. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said that it explained that if the man were tried and convicted, he would have the right to appeal the conviction but he already give up his right. The Supreme Court further asked the man whether he was willing to give up all his rights and any other rights he had and plead guilty and the man answered yes. The man then admitted that he entered unlawfully and remained unlawfully in the victim’s dwelling, that he was aware that she had obtained an order of protection against him, and that he had violated that order of protection.
Consequently, the man failed to complete a drug treatment program after he fled from the second treatment facility in which he had been placed. The man remained at large for over a year until he was returned to court on a bench warrant. When the man subsequently appeared, the court sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of five years for burglary in the second degree, 2 to 4 years for criminal contempt in the first degree, and one year for criminal contempt in the second degree. The Supreme Court also imposed a five-year term of post release supervision. At the end of the proceeding, the court informed the man that it was issuing a full order of protection which would be in effect for 13 years, and would bar him from contact with the victim.
On appeal, the man argues with the duration of the final order of protection issued in favor of the victim. He contends that the Supreme Court has lacked of authority to issue an order of protection which would remain in effect for eight years beyond the expiration of his five-year judgment term of imprisonment because he committed the offenses to which he pleaded guilty before was amended to increase the maximum duration of final orders of protection. Based on records, the legislature acted to extend the maximum length of orders of protection issued in favor of victims of family felony offenses in order to give the victims a measure of increased protection from their abusers, rather than to punish the abusers.
Subsequently, the courts rejected the man’s contention and conclude that the Supreme Court had the authority to issue a final order of protection with a maximum duration of eight years. As a result, upon the appeal from the judgment, the request to vacate the final order of protection is denied.
Any person who experiences sex crimes will surely suffer from emotional pain and fear of other people. If you want to fight for your rights back, the Kings Sex Crime Lawyer can offer you a hand. However, if you are the one who committed the crime, the Kings Criminal Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates can provide you with sound assessment and reliable legal representation.