A New York appellate court has modified the duration of two orders of protection related to a burglary case involving Jondell Harley. The ruling comes after Harley's appeal against a judgment that convicted him of third-degree burglary. This decision impacts how long the orders of protection will remain in effect and addresses concerns about jail time credit.

The case, People v. Harley, was filed under docket number 2023-10874 and decided on September 16, 2026, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The court's ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal standards regarding the duration of protective orders in criminal cases.

Background

Jondell Harley was convicted of third-degree burglary in Queens County after entering a guilty plea. The Supreme Court of Queens County, presided over by Judge Jerry M. Iannece, sentenced Harley and issued two orders of protection at that time. These orders were intended to protect the victims involved in the case.

The appeal arose when Harley contested the duration of these orders of protection, which were set to last until October 18, 2035. His legal team argued that the court did not properly credit him for the time he had already served in jail before the sentencing. This issue prompted Harley to appeal the decision, leading to a review by the Appellate Division.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division ruled in favor of Harley, stating that the orders of protection's duration exceeded the maximum period allowed under New York law. The court noted, "the duration of the orders of protection exceeded the maximum period permissible under CPL 530.13(4)(A)." This ruling was based on the understanding that Harley had not been credited for his jail time served, which the prosecution did not dispute.

The court vacated the specific provisions of the orders of protection that mandated they remain in effect until 2035. Instead, the court remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court of Queens County for a new determination regarding how long the orders should last. The judges on the panel included Lara J. Genovesi, Cheryl E. Chambers, Linda Christopher, and Phillip Hom.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Harley and similar cases in New York. By vacating the excessive duration of the orders of protection, the court has underscored the importance of accurately considering jail time served when determining the length of such orders. This decision may set a precedent for future cases, ensuring that defendants are given appropriate credit for time served, which can affect the duration of protective orders.

Furthermore, the ruling highlights the necessity for courts to clearly communicate the terms of orders of protection during sentencing. The court noted that Harley had no practical ability to object to the duration of the orders since the duration was not announced at either the plea or sentencing proceedings. This aspect of the ruling could lead to stricter guidelines on how judges inform defendants about the implications of their sentences.

What's Next

The case has been remitted to the Supreme Court of Queens County for a new determination regarding the duration of the orders of protection. It remains unclear if Harley will pursue further appeals once the new orders are established. There are no indications of related cases pending at this time.