You are here: / / A HEARING ON A DEFENDANT’S ELIGIBILITY FOR AN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE...
, ,

A HEARING ON A DEFENDANT’S ELIGIBILITY FOR AN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) CANNOT BE WAIVED AS A CONDITION OF A PLEA AGREEMENT; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting the matter, determined defendant’s waiver of a hearing on whether he was eligible for an alternative sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) was invalid:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). As a condition of his plea, defendant waived his right to a Penal Law § 60.12 hearing to determine his eligibility for an alternative sentence under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act. Inasmuch as “section 60.12 hearings are not waivable as a condition of a plea agreement” … , we agree with defendant that this matter must be remitted for further proceedings, including a Penal Law § 60.12 hearing should defendant request one … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings…. . People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 03527, Fourth Dept 6-5-26

Practice Point: A defendant cannot waive a hearing on eligibility for an alternative sentence pursuant to the DVSJA as a condition of a plea agreement. Here defendant’s sentence was vacated and the matter was remitted for a hearing if defendant requests it.

 

You might also like
MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
DEFENDANT IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE DEMONSTRATED MITIGATING FACTORS WARRANTING A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO SORA RISK LEVEL ONE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).
Trial Court’s Refusal to Allow Defense Witness to Be Called Required Reversal 
Question of Fact Whether It Was Foreseeable Children Would “Ride” an Unsecured Gate Resulting in Injury
SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET, WHICH WAS NOT ON HIS PERSON, AFTER DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND IN CUSTODY VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT DID RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WHICH REQUIRES A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
FALSE ARREST AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTIONS AGAINST THE RESTAURANT FRANCHISOR PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF CONTROL OVER THE DAY TO DAY OPERATION OF THE RESTAURANT (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PETITIONER, THE GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON... EVIDENCE THAT THE A-FRAME LADDER WAS NOT SECURED AND WAS “IMPROPERLY PLACED”...