You are here: / / BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION...
, ,

BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined criminal contempt charges were not precluded by the double jeopardy rule. As part of a neglect proceeding defendant admitted violating orders of protection. Although a 60-day period of incarceration was part of the disposition, it was repeatedly delayed as the court monitored defendant’s compliance (and was never imposed). Because the incarceration was deemed to induce compliance with Family Court’s orders, it was remedial, not punitive in nature. Therefore a subsequent prosecution for criminal contempt, arising from the violations of the orders of protection, did not violate the double jeopardy prohibition:

 

The double jeopardy protections of the US and NY Constitutions “shield a defendant from multiple criminal punishments arising from the same offense” … . Whether double jeopardy bars a criminal prosecution subsequent to a finding of contempt or similar violation of a court order depends not on the labels used to describe the previously imposed sentence, but on “the character and purpose” of that sentence … . In a contempt matter, the sentence imposed for violation of a court order is remedial if it was intended “to coerce compliance” with a court order … . By contrast, when “a contemnor is sentenced to imprisonment for a definite period which cannot be affected — that is, ended — by the contemnor’s compliance with the law [or a court order], then the contempt is not remedial but punitive” … . Double jeopardy precludes “a subsequent prosecution where a prior contempt sentence serves a punitive rather than remedial purpose” … . However, if the imposed sentence was remedial, double jeopardy does not apply … . People v Lamica, 2017 NY Slip Op 07646, Third Dept 11-2-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY LAW, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, CONTEMPT, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))/CONTEMPT (FAMILY LAW, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, CONTEMPT, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FAMILY LAW, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))

/by
You might also like
No Duty to Defend Where Causes of Action Are Excluded from Coverage Under the Terms of the Policy
Presumption, Pursuant to Banking Law 675, that a Joint Bank Account Created a Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship Is Not Triggered Unless the Signature Card for the Account Indicates a Right of Survivorship Was Intended
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PROPERLY DENIED THE FOIL REQUEST FOR CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ON THE GROUND THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ (THIRD DEPT).
RESTITUTION ORDERED AT SENTENCING (ABOUT $45OO) WAS ABOUT $500 HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT AGREED TO IN THE PLEA DEAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT’S TERMINATION FROM HER EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY BASED UPON TWO DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE CONVICTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
FAILURE TO CONTEST PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING JURORS RENDERED THE ISSUE UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL.
Convictions Based Entirely Upon Confession Reversed; Error to Allow Experiment in Evidence; Proof of Victim’s Helplessness Sufficient
DESPITE HAVING MADE A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON THE INSTANT MOTION WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT BY HIS ATTORNEY WHO ACKNOWLEDGED HE TOLD DEFENDANT A GUILTY PLEA WOULD NOT RESULT IN DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST... ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT...