People v. Deal
Docket 217 KA 24-00910
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02545
- Docket
- 217 KA 24-00910
Appeal from judgments of conviction entered after guilty pleas in Cayuga County Court.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously affirmed two Cayuga County Court judgments convicting defendant Austin R. Deal after guilty pleas: one for aggravated family offense and the other for aggravated criminal contempt. The court rejected defendant's challenges to the issuance of an order of protection, holding the court did not abuse its discretion and was not required to obtain consent from the protected person, and noted the order can be modified by motion if circumstances change. The court also found the sentences were not unduly harsh or severe and therefore affirmed both convictions and sentences.
Issues Decided
- Whether County Court abused its discretion in issuing an order of protection in conjunction with the convictions.
- Whether the court was required to obtain the consent of the person for whose benefit the order of protection was issued.
- Whether the sentences imposed were unduly harsh or severe.
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on precedent that a court may issue an order of protection without the consent of the protected person and found no abuse of discretion in the issuance here. It noted that orders of protection remain subject to modification by motion if warranted by changed circumstances. The court reviewed the sentences and determined, on the record, that they were not unduly harsh or severe, so no relief was warranted on that ground.
Authorities Cited
- People v Monacelli299 AD2d 916 (4th Dept 2002), lv denied 99 NY2d 617 (2003)
- CPL 530.13
- People v Nieves2 NY3d 310 (2004)
Parties
- Appellant
- Austin R. Deal
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Thomas G. Leone
- Attorney
- Bradley E. Keem (KEEM APPEALS, PLLC)
- Attorney
- Christopher T. Valdina (of counsel for District Attorney Brittany Grome Antonacci)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Judgment rendered
- 2024-04-18
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking leave to appeal
If the defendant wishes further review, consult counsel promptly about applying for leave to the Court of Appeals and about applicable deadlines.
- 2
File motion to modify order of protection if needed
If circumstances change for the protected person or defendant, a party may move in County Court to modify the order of protection under CPL 530.12.
- 3
Comply with sentence and order of protection
Defendant should follow the terms of the sentence and the order of protection to avoid further criminal exposure.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appeals court affirmed the convictions and sentences, and held that the order of protection was properly issued and may be modified later if appropriate.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant Austin R. Deal is affected because his convictions and sentences were upheld; the protected person is affected because the order of protection remains in place subject to modification.
- Can the order of protection be changed?
- Yes. The court noted the order of protection can be modified upon a proper motion if changed circumstances warrant.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Possibly. The Appellate Division affirmed; defendant may seek further review by the Court of Appeals, subject to the rules and deadlines for leave to appeal.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Deal - 2026 NY Slip Op 02545 People v Deal 2026 NY Slip Op 02545 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v AUSTIN R. DEAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.) Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 217 KA 24-00910 Present: Lindley, J.P., Curran, Ogden, Delconte, And Hannah, JJ. KEEM APPEALS, PLLC, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. BRITTANY GROME ANTONACCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G. Leone, J.), rendered April 18, 2024. The judgment convicted defendant upon a plea of guilty of aggravated family offense. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In these consolidated appeals, defendant appeals, in appeal No. 1, from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of aggravated family offense (Penal Law § 240.75) and, in appeal No. 2, from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of aggravated criminal contempt (§ 215.52 [3]). Contrary to defendant's contention in both appeals, County Court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the order of protection. The court was not required to obtain the consent of the person for whose benefit the order of protection was issued ( see People v Monacelli , 299 AD2d 916, 916 [4th Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 617 [2003]; see generally CPL 530.13 [4]). In any event, the order of protection is subject to modification upon a motion should the circumstances warrant ( see CPL 530.12 [15]; see generally People v Nieves , 2 NY3d 310, 317 [2004]; People v Blauvelt , 211 AD3d 1175, 1176 [3d Dept 2022]). Contrary to defendant's further contention in both appeals, we conclude that his sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn