You are here: / Reversible Error to Deny For Cause Challenge to Biased Juror/Defendant’s...

Search Results

/ ,

Reversible Error to Deny For Cause Challenge to Biased Juror/Defendant’s Counsel Ineffective

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because one of the jurors indicated a bias in favor of police officers [the for cause challenge to the juror was denied and the peremptory challenges were exhausted] and because the defendant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel:

Upon questioning by defense counsel, a prospective juror stated that there was a possibility that he would have “sympathy” for police officer witnesses. Despite further questioning on the issue, the prospective juror did not provide an unequivocal assurance that he would not be biased in favor of the police. It is well settled that, once a potential juror has indicated a possible bias, he or she “must be excused unless [he or she] provide[s] unequivocal assurance that [he or she] can set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence’ ” … . Inasmuch as the court erred in denying defendant’s challenge for cause, we reverse the judgment and grant a new trial.

We further agree … that reversal is also required on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based upon, inter alia, defense counsel’s elicitation of testimony that had been precluded by the court’s pretrial ruling and defense counsel’s characterization of defendant as a “drug dealer” on summation … . Although “[i]solated errors in counsel’s representation generally will not rise to the level of ineffectiveness” … , here defense counsel’s failures were “so serious, and resulted in such prejudice to the defendant, that he was denied a fair trial thereby” … . People v Tapia-DeJesus, 2015 NY Slip Op 00167, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/

Sentencing a Defendant with a Prior Felony Conviction as a First-Time Felon Is Illegal

The Fourth Department determined that sentencing a defendant with a prior felony conviction as a first-time felon is illegal:

…[T]he proper sentencing procedures pursuant to CPL 400.21 were not followed and thus that the sentence may be illegal. County Court sentenced defendant as a first felony offender, but, ” [w]hen it became apparent at sentencing that defendant had a prior felony conviction, the People were required to file a second felony offender statement in accordance with CPL 400.21 and, if appropriate, the court was then required to sentence defendant as a second felony offender’ ” … . “[I]t is illegal to sentence a known predicate felon as a first offender” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]) and, inasmuch as we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand, we modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed and we remit the matter to County Court for the filing of a predicate felony offender statement and resentencing in accordance with the law … . People v johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 00062, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/

Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree Is Not a Lesser Inclusory Concurrent Count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree

The Fourth Department determined that criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is not a lesser inclusory concurrent count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree:

“[A] comparative examination of the statutes defining the two crimes, in the abstract” (People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 64), demonstrates that it is possible to commit criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree without by the same conduct committing criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (compare § 265.02 [1] with § 265.03 [3]). For example, a defendant in possession of a loaded gun outside of his or her home or business who had not previously been convicted of any crime would be committing only the second-degree but not the third-degree offense. Because it is possible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser one, the two counts are ” non-inclusory concurrent counts’ ” … . To the extent that the prior decision of this Court in People v Wilkins (104 AD3d 1156, lv denied 21 NY3d 1011) was based on an incorrect concession by the People and suggests a rule to the contrary, we conclude that Wilkins should no longer be followed. People v Puryear, 2015 NY Slip Op 00093, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ , ,

Defendant’s Attorney Not Ineffective for Failing to Make a Motion to Suppress—Nature of a Motion Which, If Not Made, Would Constitute Ineffective Assistance Addressed by the Majority and the Dissent

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant’s attorney was not ineffective for failure to move to suppress a few of the items of stolen property seized after a traffic stop.  The majority and the dissent disagreed about whether the appeal questioned the validity of the traffic stop or the arrest after the stop.  The dissent felt that a motion to suppress all of the evidence based upon the arguable invalidity of the vehicle stop should have been made. The majority felt that the validity of the stop had not been questioned on appeal. The majority noted that, because the defendant testified, even if the evidence had been suppressed, the defendant could have been impeached with the suppressed evidence. The most useful discussion in the decision concerns the general nature of a motion which, if not made, would constitute ineffective assistance:

We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the threshold standard to be applied in determining whether an attorney was ineffective for failing to file a particular motion is “whether the motion at issue had more than little or no chance of success.” It is true, as the dissent points out, that the Court of Appeals has repeatedly stated that “[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance of trial counsel arising from counsel’s failure to make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success’ ” … . By so stating, however, the Court was not articulating the standard for what does constitute ineffective assistance of counsel; instead, the Court was explaining what does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. As noted, the Court has made clear in other cases that the standard to be applied is whether defense counsel failed to file a “colorable” motion and, if so, whether counsel had a strategic or legitimate reason for failing to do so … . Although neither the Court of Appeals nor the Appellate Division has defined “colorable” in this context, the term is elsewhere defined as “appearing to be true, valid, or right” (Black’s Law Dictionary 301 [9th ed 2009]). Federal courts have described a colorable claim as one that has ” a fair probability or a likelihood, but not a certitude, of success on the merits’ ” … . Here, for the reasons previously stated, we do not believe that a motion to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful arrest would likely have been granted. People v Carver, 2015 NY Slip Op 00046, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ , ,

Defendant Invoked His Right to Counsel By Asking a Police Officer to Retrieve Defendant’s Lawyer’s Phone Number from Defendant’s Wallet—Subsequent Statements Should Have Been Suppressed/Defense Counsel’s Failure to Move to Suppress Weapon Seized from Defendant’s Person Deprived Defendant of Effective Assistance

The Fourth Department determined statements made after defendant invoked his right to counsel should have been suppressed. Defendant, after he was read the Miranda rights, asked a police officer to retrieve the defendant’s lawyer’s phone number from the defendant’s wallet.  The court further found defendant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress the weapon seized from defendant’s person:

“Whether a particular request [for counsel] is or is not unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to the circumstances surrounding the request including the defendant’s demeanor [and] manner of expression[,] and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant” (People v Glover, 87 NY2d 838, 839). Here, the testimony at the suppression hearing established that, before defendant was informed of his Miranda rights at the police station, defendant asked a police officer to retrieve the telephone number of defendant’s attorney from defendant’s wallet. The hearing testimony further established that an investigator acknowledged defendant’s request but asked defendant to continue speaking with the police. That testimony was confirmed by a videotaped interview submitted at the hearing as an exhibit. ” [V]iewed in context of the totality of circumstances, particularly with respect to events following [defendant’s request for his attorney’s phone number]’ ” … ,we conclude that defendant unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and that his statements should have been suppressed  … .

We agree with defendant … that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s errors with respect to suppression … . We note that defense counsel moved to suppress evidence seized from defendant’s residence although there was no indication that any evidence was seized therefrom but failed to move to suppress the gun found on defendant’s person. The record establishes that defendant was arrested after a police officer observed defendant and three other individuals standing “approximately 8-10 houses away” from the location of reported gunfire. According to a police report, “[f]or officer safety purposes, [the officer] ordered [defendant and the other three individuals] to the ground and they were taken into custody,” and a police officer found defendant in possession of a loaded weapon. There is no indication in the record on appeal that the police had a founded suspicion that defendant and his companions were the source of the gunfire or were involved in any other criminal activity … . On the record before us, we conclude that there are no strategic reasons for moving to suppress evidence that did not exist while failing to move to suppress a gun that was seized from defendant’s person and that was the factual basis for the charges in the indictment … . We further conclude that defense counsel’s errors prejudiced defendant and deprived him of the right to effective assistance of counsel … . People v Barber, 2015 NY Slip Op 00058, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/

Error Associated With Defendant’s Being Handcuffed During the Suppression Hearing Harmless/Error Associated with Defendant’s Wearing a Stun Belt During Trial Waived

The Fourth Department, in affirming defendant’s first degree murder conviction, determined the court’s failure to place on the record the reason defendant was hand-cuffed during the suppression hearing was harmless error, and the error associated with the defendant’s wearing a stun belt during the trial was waived:

With respect to being restrained in handcuffs, the court denied defense counsel’s request to remove defendant’s handcuffs during the suppression hearing in accordance with the County Sheriff’s policy. Although the court’s response was error, inasmuch as a court “must state a particularized reason for [restraining defendant] on the record” even at a bench trial …, we nevertheless conclude that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the error “did not contribute to the [court’s decision]” on the suppression issue … . With respect to the stun belt, we note that the requirement to wear the stun belt is not a mode of proceedings error and, therefore, such an error may be waived … . Here, defendant waived his contention because he agreed to wear the stun belt, despite the court having informed defendant that he was entitled to a hearing to make findings as to the necessity of the belt … .  People v Ashline, 2015 NY Slip Op 00037, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ ,

Even If Initial Frisk of Defendant Was Unlawful, the Defendant’s Pushing the Officer and Running Away Justified the Defendant’s Arrest (for Harassment of the Officer) and Seizure of Drugs

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence was properly denied.  Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by the police.  A police officer told defendant to get out of the vehicle and proceeded to frisk him.  The defendant then pushed the officer and ran away.  He was captured and drugs were subsequently found.  The Fourth Department determined that, even if the frisk was unlawful, the defendant’s pushing the officer and running away were not precipitated by the frisk:

Even assuming, arguendo, that the frisk was unlawful, we conclude that defendant’s act of pushing the frisking officer was not “spontaneous and precipitated by the illegality . . . [but] was a calculated act not provoked by the unlawful police activity and thus attenuated from it” … . We therefore conclude that there was probable cause for defendant’s subsequent arrest for harassment of the frisking officer … . Consequently, the drugs seized from defendant’s person and the backseat of the patrol car were discovered incident to a lawful arrest … . People v Fox, 2015 NY Slip Op 00034, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/

Stop and Investigative Detention of Defendant Was Proper Under DeBour Analysis/Defendant’s Absence from Initial Sandoval Conference Cured by His Presence at a Subsequent Sandoval Hearing/Defendant’s Sentence Reduced Based In Part on a Much Lower Sentence Attached to a Plea Offer

The Fourth Department determined that the arresting officer had enough information about the defendant’s behavior to justify stopping the defendant after he left a store with a plastic garbage bag (which turned out to be full of shirts on hangers).  The court explained and applied the DeBour criteria for street stops and investigative detention.  The court further determined that defendant’s absence from a discussion in chambers of the prior crimes about which the defendant could be questioned if he testified (a Sandoval hearing) was not reversible error because the same discussion was later held on the record in defendant’s presence.  The Fourth Department reduced defendant’s sentence, who was found to be a persistent felony offender, from 20 to 15 years, noting that he was a non-violent serial shoplifter and he had been offered a plea deal with a sentence of two to four years.  With respect to the legality of stopping and detaining the defendant, the court wrote:

…[T]he deputy sheriff observed defendant carrying the bag while walking away from the scene of a recently reported larceny and in the direction of the suspected getaway vehicle. Although there were other people in the parking lot at the time, defendant was the only person walking toward that vehicle and the only person carrying a large garbage bag, which is unusual in that setting. Based on those observations, we conclude that the deputy sheriff had the requisite founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot sufficient to justify the common-law right of inquiry … .

Moving to the next step of the DeBour analysis, we conclude that the deputy sheriff’s questions of defendant were reasonably related to the scope of the circumstances that justified the interference … . In response to the deputy sheriff’s first question, defendant offered the obviously false answer that there was nothing in the bag, which contained 61 shirts on hangers. That false answer, combined with the information already obtained by the deputy sheriff, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed or was committing a crime … . It thus follows that the deputy sheriff acted lawfully in stopping and detaining defendant for investigative purposes. People v Ellison, 2015 NY Slip Op 00015, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ ,

Insufficient Evidence Defendant Shared the Intent of the Seller of Heroin—Conviction Under an “Acting in Concert” or “Accomplice” Theory Reversed

Using its “interests of justice” jurisdiction over an unpreserved error, the Fourth Department determined the evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s conviction under an “acting in concert” or “accomplice” theory.  There was insufficient evidence the defendant shared the intent to sell heroin:

“To establish an acting-in-concert theory in the context of a drug sale, the People must prove not only that the defendant shared the requisite mens rea for the underlying crime but also that defendant, in furtherance of the crime, solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal in the commission of the crime . . . The key to our analysis is whether a defendant intentionally and directly assisted in achieving the ultimate goal of the enterprise–—the illegal sale of a narcotic drug” … .

We conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant acted in concert with the codefendant to sell heroin to the buyer inasmuch as he did nothing “more than simply direct the [buyer] to a location where [she] could purchase [heroin]” … . “While this evidence certainly demonstrated that the defendant was able to identify a local purveyor of narcotics, it did not show . . . that he shared the seller’s intent to bring the transaction about . . . [Indeed], by merely responding to the [buyer’s] inquiry as to who had drugs for sale, the defendant did nothing to solicit or request, much less demand[,] importune[, or assist in] the illicit sale” … . We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the indictment. People v Davila, 2015 NY Slip Op 00016, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ , ,

Supreme Court Properly Considered Documentary Evidence Re: a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)—Limited Role of Such Evidence in this Context Clarified/Criteria for Specific Performance of a Real Estate Contract Explained

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Whalen, clarified how a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211(a)(7)) should be handled when documentary evidence is submitted by the defendant.  The case involved a real estate transaction which initially fell through when plaintiff was unable to finance it.  Years later, when plaintiff finally was able to obtain financing, it sought specific performance of the original contract. Documents tracing the history of the communications between plaintiff and defendant were submitted with the motion to dismiss.  Supreme Court considered the documents and dismissed the complaint.  The Fourth Department affirmed. In addition to an extensive discussion of the use of documentary evidence submitted in support of (and in opposition to) a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the Fourth Department explained the criteria for specific performance of a real estate contract and the role of a “time is of the essence” demand (which was not made here):

CPLR 3211 (a) (7) authorizes the summary dismissal of a complaint for failure to “state” a cause of action. Historically, “[a] motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action . . . was[] limited to the face of the complaint” (Rovello, 40 NY2d at 638 [Wachtler, J., dissenting]), but the Legislature enlarged the scope of facial sufficiency motions by enacting subdivision (c) of CPLR 3211, which permits “trial court[s to] use affidavits in its consideration of a pleading motion to dismiss” (id. at 635 …). The Court in Rovello held that the plain text of CPLR 3211 (c) “leaves this question,” i.e., the admissibility of affidavits on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), “free from doubt” (id. at 635). The 1st Department recently explained that Rovello’s reference to “affidavits” is merely shorthand for “evidentiary submissions” … .

As noted in Rovello, however, CPLR 3211 does not specify “what effect shall be given the contents of affidavits submitted on a motion to dismiss when the motion has not been converted to a motion for summary judgment” (id.). The Court noted that “[m]odern pleading rules are designed to focus attention on whether the pleader has a cause of action rather than on whether he has properly stated one’ ” and held that evidentiary submissions may only be considered for a “limited purpose” in assessing the facial sufficiency of a civil complaint (id. at 636). This “limited purpose,” Rovello explained, is two-fold. On the one hand, “affidavits submitted by the defendant [as movant] will seldom if ever warrant the relief” sought under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) “unless too the affidavits establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action” (id. [emphasis added]). On the other hand, the nonmoving party may “freely” submit evidentiary materials “to preserve inartfully pleaded, but potentially meritorious, claims” (id. at 635).

The “limited purpose” to be accorded evidentiary submissions on a motion to dismiss has been consistently reiterated by the Court of Appeals since Rovello … . Indeed, in Guggenheimer v Ginzburg (43 NY2d 268, 275), the Ct. of Appeals noted that “dismissal should . . . eventuate” only when the defendant’s evidentiary affidavits “show[] that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and . . . that no significant dispute exists regarding it” … . * * *

We therefore conclude that the court properly considered defendant’s evidentiary submissions in evaluating the motion to dismiss at bar. Liberty Affordable Hous Inc v Maple Ct Apts, 2015 NY Slip Op 0003, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

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