You are here: / Appeals
, ,

JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE, MATTER REMITTED FOR APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNSEL AND A RULING ON THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department held the appeal in abeyance because the defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea was not ruled on. The matter was sent back for a ruling after defendant was assigned new counsel:

… [T]he County Court erred in failing to consider the defendant’s oral pro se application at the resentence proceeding to withdraw his plea of guilty. There is no indication in the record that the court ruled on the defendant’s motion. The court neither granted nor denied it on the record before us. As CPL 470.15(1) serves as a legislative restriction on this Court’s power to review issues not ruled upon by the trial court … , the court’s failure to rule on the motion precludes our review of the issue raised by the defendant’s appeal … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted … for further proceedings on the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, for which the defendant shall be appointed new counsel, and thereafter a report to this Court on the motion and whether the defendant established his entitlement to withdrawal of his plea of guilty. People v Rovinsky, 2018 NY Slip Op 02814, Second Dept 4-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PLEA, WITHDRAWAL OF, JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE, MATTER REMITTED FOR APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNSEL AND A RULING ON THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO RULE, JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE, MATTER REMITTED FOR APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNSEL AND A RULING ON THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT))/PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE, MATTER REMITTED FOR APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNSEL AND A RULING ON THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO A RECOMMENDATION ON INCARCERATION FROM THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE FINDING HUSBAND WAS IN WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE SUPPORT ORDER, BECAUSE NO RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE, MOTHER WAS EFFECTIVELY DENIED THE ABILITY TO OBJECT OR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother was entitled to a ruling from the support magistrate on whether incarceration was recommended based on father’s willful violation of a child support order. Rather than making the recommendation, the support magistrate postponed the ruling and husband continued to violate the order for several months while the Family Court proceedings were ongoing, effectively making it impossible for mother to object or appeal:

The Family Court denied the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s fact-finding order because it found that the order was not “final.” The order cited Family Court Act Section 439(e), which permits objections to a “final” order of a Support Magistrate, and Section 439(a), which provides that a “determination by a Support Magistrate that a person is in willful violation of an order . . . and that recommends commitment . . . shall have no force and effect until confirmed by a judge of the court.” This was error. First, under the plain language of the statute, the Support Magistrate’s fact-finding order was not an order that “shall have no force and effect until confirmed by a judge of the court,” since it did not recommend incarceration. The Support Magistrate’s failure to make a recommendation as to incarceration upon his finding of willfulness essentially constituted a recommendation against incarceration, since the mother could not seek that remedy without a recommendation from the Support Magistrate. Moreover, the parties were entitled to a complete written fact-finding order, including a recommendation as to incarceration, within five court days following completion of the hearing on the mother’s violation petition … . Accordingly, the Family Court should have considered the mother’s objections, and, upon doing so, should have exercised its authority to remand the matter to the Support Magistrate for an immediate recommendation as to incarceration, or to make, with or without holding a new hearing, its own findings of fact and order based on the record … . Matter of Carmen R. v Luis I., 2018 NY Slip Op 02422, First Dept 4-10-18

​FAMILY LAW (CHILD SUPPORT, MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO A RECOMMENDATION ON INCARCERATION FROM THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE FINDING HUSBAND WAS IN WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE SUPPORT ORDER, BECAUSE NO RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE, MOTHER WAS EFFECTIVELY DENIED THE ABILITY TO OBJECT OR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/CHILD SUPPORT (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO A RECOMMENDATION ON INCARCERATION FROM THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE FINDING HUSBAND WAS IN WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE SUPPORT ORDER, BECAUSE NO RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE, MOTHER WAS EFFECTIVELY DENIED THE ABILITY TO OBJECT OR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPORT MAGISTRATE (INCARCERATION, MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO A RECOMMENDATION ON INCARCERATION FROM THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE FINDING HUSBAND WAS IN WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE SUPPORT ORDER, BECAUSE NO RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE, MOTHER WAS EFFECTIVELY DENIED THE ABILITY TO OBJECT OR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, INCARCERATION, MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO A RECOMMENDATION ON INCARCERATION FROM THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE FINDING HUSBAND WAS IN WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE SUPPORT ORDER, BECAUSE NO RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE, MOTHER WAS EFFECTIVELY DENIED THE ABILITY TO OBJECT OR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE AT TRIAL THAT HE HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, HE DID NOT PROVE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AND DID NOT PROVE THE NOTE WAS INDORSED IN BLANK OR TO HIM, APPELLATE COURT CAN INDEPENDENTLY WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court after a trial, determined plaintiff did not prove he had standing to bring the foreclosure action:

… [T]he complaint should have been dismissed for lack of standing. Because defendant raised the issue of standing as an affirmative defense in his answer, plaintiff had to prove his standing to maintain this foreclosure action in order to be entitled to relief… . To establish standing, plaintiff was required “to demonstrate that, at the time that the action was commenced, [he] was the holder or assignee of the mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note”… . As the issue of standing was resolved following a nonjury trial, we will “independently review the probative weight of the evidence, together with the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, and grant the judgment warranted by the record” … . …

“Holder status is established where the plaintiff possesses a note that, on its face or by allonge, contains an indorsement in blank or bears a special indorsement payable to the order of the plaintiff”… . While there was testimony that plaintiff possessed the original note at the time of trial in 2015, there was no proof that he was in possession of the original note when he commenced this foreclosure action five years earlier. Even if he was, the note — which was payable to Trustees Capital — was neither indorsed in blank nor specially indorsed to him. Consequently, plaintiff’s physical possession of the note could not render him the lawful holder thereof for purposes of enforcing it … . McCormack v Maloney, 2018 NY Slip Op 02385, Third Dept 4-5-18

​FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE AT TRIAL THAT HE HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, HE DID NOT PROVE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AND DID NOT PROVE THE NOTE WAS INDORSED IN BLANK OR TO HIM, APPELLATE COURT CAN INDEPENDENTLY WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE AT TRIAL THAT HE HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, HE DID NOT PROVE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AND DID NOT PROVE THE NOTE WAS INDORSED IN BLANK OR TO HIM, APPELLATE COURT CAN INDEPENDENTLY WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (FORECLOSURE, (PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE AT TRIAL THAT HE HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, HE DID NOT PROVE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AND DID NOT PROVE THE NOTE WAS INDORSED IN BLANK OR TO HIM, APPELLATE COURT CAN INDEPENDENTLY WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice, determined the failure to instruct the jury witnesses were accomplices as a matter of law requiring corroboration of their testimony was reversible error, and defense counsel’s failure to request the instruction constituted ineffective assistance:

We conclude that the lack of an accomplice corroboration charge (see CPL 60.22) warrants a new trial, and we reach this unpreserved issue in the interest of justice. The People’s case against defendant was based almost entirely on the testimony of three witnesses, each of whom was either an accomplice as a matter of law or a person who could reasonably be viewed by the jury as an accomplice as a matter of fact… . While there was some nonaccomplice evidence, it was far from extensive … . In fact, one of the only other witnesses undermined the accomplice testimony by establishing that defendant was not initially identified as a perpetrator of the underlying assault.

Moreover, we conclude that counsel’s admittedly nonstrategic failure to request the instruction constituted ineffective assistance under all the circumstances of the case … . People v Douglas, 2018 NY Slip Op 02397, First Dept 4-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICES, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/ACCOMPLICES (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/CORROBORATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICES, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice, determined the jury should have been instructed that a witness, Dozier, was an accomplice as a matter of law and his testimony therefore required corroboration:

… “[T]o be an accomplice for corroboration purposes, the witness must somehow be criminally implicated and potentially subject to prosecution for the conduct or factual transaction related to the crimes for which the defendant is on trial”… .

Here, Dozier’s unimpeached testimony established that he was at the second-floor apartment on the day in question to purchase crack cocaine … . He was arrested and charged, along with defendant and the remaining codefendants, with crimes stemming from his presence in the apartment on that date and thereafter pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in exchange for his truthful testimony against defendant. Because Dozier “could have been (and was) charged with a crime ‘based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct’ upon which the charges against defendant were based,” he was an accomplice as a matter of law … . County Court was therefore required to instruct the jury that Dozier was an accomplice as a matter of law and that defendant could not be convicted on Dozier’s testimony absent corroborative evidence (seeCPL 60.22 [1]). “Failure to so charge the jury was necessarily harmful error,” given that the case against defendant rested substantially — if not exclusively — upon the testimony of Dozier … . People v Pettus, 2018 NY Slip Op 02366, Third Dept 4-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ACCOMPLICE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE REVERSAL, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/INTEREST OF JUSTICE (APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/ACCOMPLICES (CRIMINAL LAW,  FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS, (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/CORROBORATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICES, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s statement at sentencing that he didn’t mean to hurt the victim required further inquiry by the court:

Although the record does not disclose that defendant made the appropriate postallocution motion required of him to adequately preserve this claim for our review … , we find that defendant made statements at sentencing that cast doubt upon his guilt and the voluntariness of his plea, thus triggering the narrow exception to the preservation requirement and imposing a duty upon County Court “to inquire further to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea [was] knowing and voluntary”… . A trial court “‘should conduct a hearing [or further inquiry] when at plea-taking or upon sentencing it appears the defendant misapprehends the nature of the charges or the consequences of [the] plea'”… . In addition, statements made by a defendant that negate an element of the crime to which a plea has been entered, raise the possibility of a justification defense or otherwise suggest an involuntary plea “require[s] the trial court to then conduct a further inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … .

At sentencing, defendant stated, “I was sorry that the person got hurt. I didn’t mean to hurt him. I was just trying to protect my family inside my home.” When confronted by County Court with the fact that he had allocuted during the plea colloquy that he intended to hurt the victim, defendant stated, “I was scared, so I intend[ed] to hurt him.” Without any further inquiry or discussion, County Court then proceeded to sentence defendant without providing him with an opportunity to withdraw his plea, notwithstanding his statements raising the possibility of a justification defense. People v Chin, 2018 NY Slip Op 02363, Third Dept 4-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE PLEA, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT))/ALLOCUTION (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT))/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial court’s allowing Sandoval evidence of a prior robbery which was the subject of a pending appeal was error, and the error was not harmless under the facts:

We … reverse the judgment of conviction because of an erroneous Sandoval ruling made by the Supreme Court … . At trial, the court permitted the defendant to be cross-examined about a prior robbery conviction which, at that time, was the subject of a pending appeal … . However, the Court of Appeals has held, and the People concede, that defendants may not be examined “about the underlying facts of an unrelated criminal conviction on appeal, for the purpose of impeaching his credibility” …

Sandoval errors are subject to harmless error analyses … . Here, however, we cannot conclude that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming or that there was no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction … . People v Wahaab, 2018 NY Slip Op 02332, Second Dept 4-4-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SANDOVAL, ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/SANDOVAL (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SANDOVAL, ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a short memorandum decision, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the record supported the trial court’s finding that the stop and search of the defendant, in an apartment building, met the DeBour street stop criteria:

Police were conducting a vertical patrol of a New York City Housing Authority building in a high crime area and interviewing tenants in search of a robbery suspect in an investigation unrelated to this case. Defendant got off the elevator, observed the police officers — who were approximately eight feet away with shields displayed — and immediately retreated into the elevator. Defendant ignored an officer’s request that he hold the door and instead “kept pushing the button” and the elevator doors closed. In light of this behavior, as well as the building’s history of narcotics and trespass activity, the police followed defendant to determine whether he lived in the building. Rather than respond to the officer’s questions, defendant turned away from the police to face the wall, held his head down with the hood of his sweatshirt over his head, and kept his hands hidden inside his sweatshirt. The officer immediately noticed a large bulge in defendant’s right arm, which defendant held stiffly and straight down from his body in an unnatural position. … When the officer touched the defendant’s wrist, he felt a metal object, lifted the sleeve of the defendant’s shirt, saw the point of a blade, and ordered him to “drop it.” Defendant did not comply and officers had to pull the weapon — a two-foot-long machete — from defendant’s shirt. Minutes later, the officer learned of a recent robbery in the area involving a machete-wielding suspect wearing clothing matching that worn by defendant.

The issue on appeal to this Court, whether the police conduct conformed to De Bour, presents a mixed question of law and fact …  Accordingly, “our review is limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts’ determinations” … . …  People v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 02118, CtApp 3-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOPS, THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/DEBOUR (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS,  THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS, MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS,  THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))

,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DENYING THAT HE SOLD COCAINE AND DESCRIBING THE PROCEEDINGS AS CORRUPT WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined defendant’s statements denying he sold cocaine and describing the proceedings as corrupt mandated further inquiry by the court. The failure to preserve the error by a postallocution motion did not, under the facts, prevent the court from reaching the issue on appeal:

During the plea colloquy, defendant admitted to possessing cocaine with the intent to sell, but he denied that he sold the cocaine. After County Court stated that it would not accept his plea, it again asked defendant whether he sold the cocaine, and defendant answered “yes.” Defendant informed that court, however, that he was pleading guilty only because he could “no longer go forward to proceed to trial with the level of corruption and maliciousness being used to prosecute” him. The court nevertheless accepted his plea.

Although defendant never moved to withdraw his guilty plea, this case falls within the exception to the preservation requirement that was carved out by the Court of Appeals in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), which permits appellate review of the sufficiency of a plea allocution despite the absence of such a motion, where the recitation of facts elicited during the plea allocution “clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea.” Under such circumstances, if the court fails to conduct “further inquiry to ensure that [the] defendant understands the nature of the charge and that the plea is intelligently entered . . . , the defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the allocution on direct appeal, notwithstanding that a formal postallocution motion was not made” … . People v Daniels, 2018 NY Slip Op 02094, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DENYING THAT HE SOLD COCAINE AND DESCRIBING THE PROCEEDINGS AS CORRUPT WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DENYING THAT HE SOLD COCAINE AND DESCRIBING THE PROCEEDINGS AS CORRUPT WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/PLEA COLLOQUY (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DENYING THAT HE SOLD COCAINE AND DESCRIBING THE PROCEEDINGS AS CORRUPT WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/COLLOQUY (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DENYING THAT HE SOLD COCAINE AND DESCRIBING THE PROCEEDINGS AS CORRUPT WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/ALLOCUTION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DENYING THAT HE SOLD COCAINE AND DESCRIBING THE PROCEEDINGS AS CORRUPT WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))

,

MATTER MUST BE SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING, DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF PROBATION WAS NOT SPECIFIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the matter must be sent back for resentencing, despite the failure to raise the issue on appeal, because the length of probation was not specified:

Although not raised by the parties, we note that the judgment must be modified by vacating the sentence and the matter must be remitted to County Court for resentencing because the court did not specify the length of the term of probation … . People v Petrangelo, 2018 NY Slip Op 02074, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, MATTER MUST BE SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING, DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF PROBATION WAS NOT SPECIFIED (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (MATTER MUST BE SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING, DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF PROBATION WAS NOT SPECIFIED (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SENTENCING,  MATTER MUST BE SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING, DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF PROBATION WAS NOT SPECIFIED (FOURTH DEPT))/PROBATION (CRIMINAL LAW, SENTENCING,  MATTER MUST BE SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING, DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF PROBATION WAS NOT SPECIFIED (FOURTH 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy