constitutional double jeopardy claim in New York

2025Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, "a constitutional double jeopardy claim may be raised for the first time on appeal" ( People v Gardner , 132 AD3d 1349, 1350 [4th Dept 2015]; see generally People v Biggs , 1 NY3d 225, 231 [2003]).

2016Defendant's double jeopardy claims are not preserved for appellate review ( see People v Biggs , 1 NY3d 225 , 231 [2003] [recognizing that a statutory double jeopardy claim is not exempt from the requirement of preservation]; People v Gonzalez , 99 NY2d 76, 82-83 [2002] [recognizing that a constitutional double jeopardy claim premised on the protection against [*2] multiple punishments for the same offense is not exempt from the requirement of preservation]), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.

2015It is well settled that a defendant has “the right not to be punished more than once for the same crime” (People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198, 214 [2010], cert denied 562 US 947 [2010], citing United States v DiFrancesco, 449 US 117, 129 [1980]).

2015It is well settled that a defendant has “the right not to be punished more than once for the same crime” (People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198, 214 [2010], cert denied 562 US 947 [2010], citing United States v DiFrancesco, 449 US 117, 129 [1980]).

2015Moreover, although defendant failed to preserve that ground for our review, we further note that a constitutional double jeopardy claim may be raised for the first time on appeal (see People v Biggs, 1 NY3d 225, 231 [2003]; People v Buffin, 244 AD2d 925, 925 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 924 [1998]).

2015Moreover, although defendant failed to preserve that ground for our review, we further note that a constitutional double jeopardy claim may be raised for the first time on appeal (see People v Biggs, 1 NY3d 225, 231 [2003]; People v Buffin, 244 AD2d 925, 925 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 924 [1998]).

2015It is well settled that a defendant has “the right not to be punished more than once for the same crime” (People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198, 214 [2010], cert denied 562 US 947 [2010], citing United States v DiFrancesco, 449 US 117, 129 [1980]).

2015It is well settled that a defendant has “the right not to be punished more than once for the same crime” (People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198, 214 [2010], cert denied 562 US 947 [2010], citing United States v DiFrancesco, 449 US 117, 129 [1980]).

2016Defendant's double jeopardy claims are not preserved for appellate review ( see People v Biggs , 1 NY3d 225 , 231 [2003] [recognizing that a statutory double jeopardy claim is not exempt from the requirement of preservation]; People v Gonzalez , 99 NY2d 76, 82-83 [2002] [recognizing that a constitutional double jeopardy claim premised on the protection against [*2] multiple punishments for the same offense is not exempt from the requirement of preservation]), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.

2003“A statutory claim that one may not be separately prosecuted for two offenses based on the same act or criminal transaction . . . must be duly preserved if there is to be appellate review” (People v Dodson, 48 NY2d 36, 38 [1979]; see also People v Gonzalez, 99 NY2d 76, 82-83 [2002] [holding that a constitutional double jeopardy claim as to whether multiple punishments for the same offense were appropriate was a statutory interpretation question that must be preserved for review]).

2012(See People v Prescott, 66 NY2d 216, 220-221 [1985], cert denied 475 US 1150 [1986], citing Menna v New York, 423 US 61 [1975].) Moreover, although a constitutional double jeopardy claim may be expressly waived in a plea agreement (see People v Allen, 86 NY2d 599 [1995]), nothing in the record indicates that the appellant expressly waived that claim when he admitted to the petition.

2012In any event, a constitutional double jeopardy claim does not arise when each of the challenged charges “requires proof of a fact which the other does not” (Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299, 304 [1932]; see United States v Dixon, 509 US 688, 696 [1993]; People v Prescott, 66 NY2d 216, 221 [1985], cert denied 475 US 1150 [1986]; People v Gray, 300 AD2d 696 , 697 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 561 [2003]).

2012In any event, a constitutional double jeopardy claim does not arise when each of the challenged charges “requires proof of a fact which the other does not” (Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299, 304 [1932]; see United States v Dixon, 509 US 688, 696 [1993]; People v Prescott, 66 NY2d 216, 221 [1985], cert denied 475 US 1150 [1986]; People v Gray, 300 AD2d 696 , 697 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 561 [2003]).

1983(See People v Dean, 56 AD2d 242 , affd 45 NY2d 651 .) However, the test most often employed appears to be that set forth in Block-burger v United States ( 284 US 299, 304 ), i.e., “whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” And see People v Artis ( 74 AD2d 644 ), wherein, under Blockburger, it was held that a prosecution for robbery was not barred on double jeopardy grounds by virtue of a prior guilty plea to criminal possession of stolen property, third degree, each statute requiring proof of a fact the other did not require.

2025Defendant's contention is without merit inasmuch as no particular litany regarding the claims that survive or do not survive a waiver of the right to appeal is required for the waiver to be valid ( see People v Edmonds , 229 AD3d 1275, 1277 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 930 [2025]; Giles , 219 AD3d at 1706-1707; People v Wood , 217 AD3d 1407, 1408 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1000 [2023]).

2025Defendant's contention is without merit inasmuch as no particular litany regarding the claims that survive or do not survive a waiver of the right to appeal is required for the waiver to be valid ( see People v Edmonds , 229 AD3d 1275 , 1277 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 930 [2025]; Giles , 219 AD3d at 1706-1707 ; People v Wood , 217 AD3d 1407, 1408 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1000 [2023]).

2025Defendant's contention is without merit inasmuch as no particular litany regarding the claims that survive or do not survive a waiver of the right to appeal is required for the waiver to be valid ( see People v Edmonds , 229 AD3d 1275, 1277 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 930 [2025]; Giles , 219 AD3d at 1706-1707; People v Wood , 217 AD3d 1407, 1408 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1000 [2023]).

2025Defendant's contention is without merit inasmuch as no particular litany regarding the claims that survive or do not survive a waiver of the right to appeal is required for the waiver to be valid ( see People v Edmonds , 229 AD3d 1275 , 1277 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 930 [2025]; Giles , 219 AD3d at 1706-1707 ; People v Wood , 217 AD3d 1407, 1408 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1000 [2023]).

2025Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, "a constitutional double jeopardy claim may be raised for the first time on appeal" ( People v Gardner , 132 AD3d 1349, 1350 [4th Dept 2015]; see generally People v Biggs , 1 NY3d 225, 231 [2003]).

2022Any further challenges to the validity of the order of protection were "matter[s] to be raised as a defense to the contempt charge, not by insistence that this [accusatory instrument] was jurisdictionally defective" ( People v Konieczny , 2 NY3d 569, 577 [2004][internal quotation marks and alterations omitted]).

2020J., concurring]), these legal and factual allegations are sufficient to particularize the crime charged and protect against a constitutional double jeopardy violation ( see People v Drayton , 66 Misc 3d 136 [A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50025[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020]; see also People v Sans , 26 NY3d 13 , 17 [2015]).

2019We therefore conclude that the constitutional double jeopardy analysis is the same under federal and state law, and that there is no constitutional double jeopardy violation here ( see People v Madden , 49 AD3d 1264, 1265 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 936 [2008]).

2016Since defendant's sentences fall within the limits set forth by the Penal Law (Penal Law §§ 60.01 [2] [d]; 65.00 [3] [b] [i]; 70.15 [1]; see also Matter of Pirro v Angiolillo , 89 NY2d 351, 353 [1996]), they were lawful.

2012In any event, a constitutional double jeopardy claim does not arise when each of the challenged charges “requires proof of a fact which the other does not” (Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299, 304 [1932]; see United States v Dixon, 509 US 688, 696 [1993]; People v Prescott, 66 NY2d 216, 221 [1985], cert denied 475 US 1150 [1986]; People v Gray, 300 AD2d 696 , 697 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 561 [2003]).

2008We further conclude on the record before us, however, that there was no constitutional double jeopardy violation (see People v Dodge, 38 AD3d 1324, 1325 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 874 [2007]; see generally Biggs, 1 NY3d at 228-229 ).

2004Moreover, although a constitutional double jeopardy claim may be encompassed by a waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 573-575 [1998]), here defendant did not waive his right to appeal with respect to his constitutional double jeopardy claim, either by an express waiver of the right to appeal with respect thereto or by a general waiver of the right to appeal.

2004Moreover, although a constitutional double jeopardy claim may be encompassed by a waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 573-575 [1998]), here defendant did not waive his right to appeal with respect to his constitutional double jeopardy claim, either by an express waiver of the right to appeal with respect thereto or by a general waiver of the right to appeal.

2003“A statutory claim that one may not be separately prosecuted for two offenses based on the same act or criminal transaction . . . must be duly preserved if there is to be appellate review” (People v Dodson, 48 NY2d 36, 38 [1979]; see also People v Gonzalez, 99 NY2d 76, 82-83 [2002] [holding that a constitutional double jeopardy claim as to whether multiple punishments for the same offense were appropriate was a statutory interpretation question that must be preserved for review]).