People v. Debouse, 6 N.Y.3d 821 (2006)
A court may issue an order of protection for an extended duration, including one effectively spanning the defendant’s lifetime, to ensure the safety and peace of mind of a kidnapping victim, provided a specific expiration date is set to provide certainty for all parties involved.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could issue an order of protection with an expiration date set 100 years into the future following a conviction for first-degree kidnapping. The court affirmed the order, holding that while the trial court could not know the exact duration of the defendant’s life sentence, setting a definitive expiration date, even one far into the future, fulfilled the purpose of providing certainty to the defendant, the victim, and law enforcement. This allowed the court to effectively issue a lifetime order of protection, maximizing the victim’s safety.
Facts
The defendant pleaded guilty to the felony of first-degree kidnapping. The County Court imposed an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 15 years to life. The court also entered an order of protection in favor of the kidnapping victim. Desiring the order to remain in effect for the maximum duration permitted by CPL 530.13 (4)—three years from the date of expiration of the defendant’s life sentence—the court set an expiration date of July 25, 2101, which was 100 years after the date of sentencing.
Procedural History
The defendant appealed the issuance of the 100-year order of protection. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and subsequently affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a trial court errs by issuing an order of protection with an expiration date set 100 years in the future, effectively creating a lifetime order of protection, following a conviction for first-degree kidnapping.
Holding
No, because setting a definitive expiration date, even one far into the future, fulfills the purpose of providing certainty to the defendant, the victim, and law enforcement, while allowing the court to maximize the victim’s safety.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that CPL 530.13 (4) grants the court discretion to enter an order of protection upon conviction of any offense, and when a defendant is convicted of a felony, the order’s duration can extend to three years from the expiration of the maximum term of imprisonment. The court addressed the challenge of determining the duration of an order of protection tied to a life sentence. Acknowledging the purpose of fixing expiration dates, the court quoted People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 317 (2004), stating that such dates are intended “to provide certainty for defendants, the protected victims and witnesses, and law enforcement authorities who may be called to enforce” the orders. The court found that the 100-year expiration date fulfilled this purpose, even though its practical effect was to create a lifetime order of protection. This approach allowed the County Court to exercise its discretion fully, providing the kidnapping victim with the “utmost safety and peace of mind.” The court also noted a subsequent amendment to CPL 530.13 (5) requiring orders of protection to plainly state their expiration date, further emphasizing the importance of certainty in such orders. There were no dissenting or concurring opinions.