You are here: / / THIS CASE PRESENTS THE RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE DEFENDANT’S SECOND...
, ,

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, DESPITE THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR MOTION WHICH WAS BASED ON THE SAME GROUND, I.E., DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHEN DEFENDANT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the defendant’s second motion to vacate his murder conviction (by guilty plea) based on his attorney’s erroneously informing him he would be eligible for parole haff-way through the 15-year sentence required a hearing. Defendant had made a prior motion on the same ground which was denied by another judge. The Third Department noted that ordinarily the prior motion would preclude the instant motion, but irregularities in the prior order denying the motion and the facts asserted in support of the instant motion justified giving the defendant a second chance:

… [T]he Legislature anticipated there would be times when it would be appropriate to reconsider issues previously decided on the merits (see CPL 440.10 [3] …). Doubtless those times should be rare; but, in our view, this is one of them.

Critically, the instant motion includes witness affidavits affirming that counsel assured defendant that he would be eligible for parole review as early as halfway through his minimum 15-year term of imprisonment (see CPL 440.30 [1] [a]; compare CPL 440.30 [4] [d]). Also attached is correspondence between defendant and counsel from December 2020. In one letter, defendant asks why counsel advised him that he would be eligible for early parole; counsel’s response does not address defendant’s question. Given defendant’s submissions, plus his relatively young age and inexperience with the criminal justice system at the time of his guilty plea, along with the irregularities in the June 2020 order, summary denial of defendant’s motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Accordingly, in the exercise of our broad authority to substitute our discretion for that of County Court … , we set aside the procedural bars to relief on the issue of counsel’s alleged erroneous parole advice and remit the matter for a hearing … . People v Phelps, 2025 NY Slip Op 01680, Third Dept 3-20-25

Practice Point: Here irregularities in the order denying defendant’s first motion to vacate his conviction and the facts presented in support of defendant’s second motion on the same ground justified consideration of the second motion.​

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT, WHO HAD BEEN INJURED, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS ABLE TO WORK DURING THE TIME SHE WAS CERTIFIED FOR BENEFITS, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD RULING SHE WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
AS NO PETITION WAS BEFORE THE COURT, FAMILY COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER A FORENSIC EVALUATION (THIRD DEPT).
Punitive Damages Not Available in Contract Action Absent Independent Tort
IF PETIONER HAD PURCHASED CONCRETE AS A PART OF A SERVICE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE PURCHASE WOULD HAVE BEEN EXEMPT FROM SALES TAX; BUT PETITIONER PURCHASED THE CONTRACT IN “RAW” FORM AND PETITIONER’S EMPLOYEES AND SUBCONTRACTORS USED IT TO BUILD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; THE PURCHASE OF THE CONCRETE WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO SALES TAX (THIRD DEPT).
THE IMPOUNDMENT OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN NECESSARY AND THE PROCEDURES FOR AN INVENTORY SEARCH OF THE VEHICLE WERE NOT FOLLOWED; THE SEIZED HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS.
Claimant, Who Worked from Her Home Pursuant to a Consulting Agreement, Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor
COMPENSATION FOR CARE BY CLAIMANT’S FAMILY MEMBER MUST BE PAID TO THE CLAIMANT, NOT THE FAMILY MEMBER 3RD 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE... THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S DRIVING-RELATED RECKLESS-ENDANGERMENT-FIRST-DEGREE...