,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was insufficient:

​

We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was not valid because, during the plea colloquy, County Court “conflated the appeal waiver with the rights automatically waived by the guilty plea” … . The court indicated that the waiver of the right to appeal was “[o]ne other condition,” and that statement “was immediately preceded by a colloquy concerning the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea”… . In addition, the court further muddied the distinction by indicating that the waiver of the right to appeal “is separate and part [sic] from your plea of guilty,” rather than indicating that it was a condition of the guilty plea but separate from the rights that defendant automatically forfeited by the plea … . Consequently, ” the record fails to establish that defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ “… . People v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 08949, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined that defendant’s conviction in this murder case was supported by the weight of the evidence. The dissent argued that defendant’s videotaped statement supported the justification defense and no other evidence presented by the People refuted it. The opinion includes a comprehensive discussion of the appellate court’s weight of the evidence analysis:

​

Weight of the evidence review involves a two-step approach. (People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]). First, the Court must determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable (id.; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). If so, then the appellate court must weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony … . That step is performed by weighing the evidence against the elements as charged to the jury … . The evidence must be of such weight and credibility as to convince the Court that the jury’s finding of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was justified … . * * *

​

Viewing all of the record evidence in light of the first prong of the Romero-Bleakley standard, had the jury credited defendant’s account of the events surrounding the shooting, it could have reasonably found that defendant was, as the trial court instructed, “justified in the use of deadly physical force, . . . hav[ing] honestly believed that it was necessary to defend himself from what he honestly believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by Steven Mari and [that] a reasonable person in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew, and being in the same circumstances would have believed that too.” Thus, had the jury credited defendant’s statement, it would not have been unreasonable for the jury to have acquitted defendant … .

Turning to the second step of the Romero-Bleakley analysis, at the outset, there is no basis for disturbing the jury’s rejection of defendant’s videotaped statement. Defendant’s statements … were materially inconsistent, and defied credulity. People v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08899, First Dept 12-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea in the interest of justice, determined the defendant was not sufficiently informed of the rights he was giving up by entering a plea:

​

“When a defendant opts to plead guilty, he [or she] must waive certain constitutional rights — the privilege against self-incrimination and the rights to a jury trial and to be confronted by witnesses”… . “While there is no mandatory catechism required of a pleading defendant, there must be an affirmative showing on the record that the defendant waived his or her constitutional rights”… .. The Court of Appeals has made clear that the trial judge has the responsibility to ensure that the defendant fully understands the plea and its consequences … .  During the plea colloquy, County Court did not reference the privilege against self-incrimination or the right to be confronted by witnesses and, although defendant was advised of his right to a trial, the court did not specify a jury trial. “We cannot conclude that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent as there was neither an affirmative showing on the record that defendant waived his constitutional rights nor any indication that he consulted with his attorney about the constitutional consequences of a guilty plea” … . People v Cotto, 2017 NY Slip Op 08759, Third Dept 12-14-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR REDUCED PROPERTY VALUE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THIS TRESPASS BY ENCROACHMENT ACTION, APPELLATE COURT CAN MAKE ITS OWN CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENTS IN THE APPEAL OF A BENCH TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ property did not lose all its value, as the trial judge found, in this trespass action, but instead the value was decreased by $325,000. In addition, plaintiffs were entitled to punitive damages and the defendants were required to tear down the encroaching structures. Plaintiffs own a single family house. Defendants built a six-story structure next door. Defendants, apparently knowingly, placed 17 I-beams on plaintiffs’ property for support during excavation and construction. Parts of the completed structure encroached on plaintiffs’ property as well. The Second Department noted that, in reviewing a bench trial, the appellate court can make its own judgments about the credibility of witnesses (the appraisers in this case):

​

The measure of damages for a continuing trespass upon real property or permanent injury to property is the “loss of market value, or the cost of restoration”… . …

​

… The Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiffs’ property had “zero” value as a result of the subject encroachments was not supported by the weight of the evidence … . Nevertheless, the encroachments of the 17 I-beams, which intruded less than one foot over the plaintiffs’ property line but extended approximately 25 feet below the ground, were significant … . …

The plaintiffs are also entitled to an award of punitive damages. “A party seeking to recover punitive damages for trespass on real property has the burden of proving that the trespasser acted with actual malice involving intentional wrongdoing, or that such conduct amounted to a wanton, willful, or reckless disregard of the party’s right of possession” … . Here, the record demonstrates that the architectural plans for the development of the defendants’ property provided that the I-beams were to be installed on the plaintiffs’ property. The record also shows that the I-beams were installed solely to provide support or shoring during excavation of the defendants’ property, and that they could have been, but were not, removed during a subsequent phase of the construction despite a timely demand by the plaintiffs for such removal. …

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the weight of the evidence supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting them from maintaining encroachments that projected over the plaintiffs’ property and directing them to remove the roof cap and the brick facade trim that were projecting into the plaintiffs’ air space. “An invasion of another’s . . . airspace need not be more than de minimis in order to constitute a trespass” … , and, on this record, the balance of the equities favors the imposition of the limited injunctive relief granted by the court … . Arcamone-Makinano v Britton Prop., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08650, Second Dept 12-13-17

 

REAL PROPERTY LAW (TRESPASS, PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR REDUCED PROPERTY VALUE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THIS TRESPASS BY ENCROACHMENT ACTION, APPELLATE COURT CAN MAKE ITS OWN CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENTS IN THE APPEAL OF A BENCH TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (BENCH TRIALS, APPELLATE COURT CAN MAKE ITS OWN CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENTS IN THE APPEAL OF A BENCH TRIAL (SECOND DEPT)))/TRESPASS (PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR REDUCED PROPERTY VALUE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THIS TRESPASS BY ENCROACHMENT ACTION, APPELLATE COURT CAN MAKE ITS OWN CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENTS IN THE APPEAL OF A BENCH TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/DAMAGES (TRESPASS,  PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR REDUCED PROPERTY VALUE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THIS TRESPASS BY ENCROACHMENT ACTION, APPELLATE COURT CAN MAKE ITS OWN CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENTS IN THE APPEAL OF A BENCH TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/ENCROACHMENT (REAL PROPERTY LAW, TRESPASS, PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR REDUCED PROPERTY VALUE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THIS TRESPASS BY ENCROACHMENT ACTION, APPELLATE COURT CAN MAKE ITS OWN CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENTS IN THE APPEAL OF A BENCH TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NO OPPORTUNITY FOR APPELLATE REVIEW, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s rape conviction, determined Supreme Court should have ordered the victim’s psychiatric records for an in camera review for relevance:

​

Prior to trial, the People disclosed that the victim had indicated that she had received treatment for bipolar disorder and depression and, further, produced a copy of the medical record from the sexual assault examination that was conducted on the day after the incident in which the victim had also reported a past medical history of “bipolar” and that she was taking prescription medications for that condition. Defendant requested that the court issue a subpoena duces tecum to obtain the victim’s mental health records and conduct an in camera review to ascertain whether they contained any information relevant and material to the victim’s credibility. …

​

Supreme Court erred when it declined to order production of the victim’s mental health records and to review them in camera. Inasmuch as those records were never produced and were not part of the record, we are unable to remit the matter for a reconstruction hearing … . Moreover, without knowing the content of those records, we are unable to determine whether the information that they contain is merely cumulative to the information provided to defendant about the victim’s mental health history that was used as a basis for cross-examination, or whether the records contain additional relevant and material information bearing on her credibility. Similarly, our lack of knowledge of the contents of the victim’s mental health records precludes us from determining whether the court’s error in this regard was harmless. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and the matter remitted for a new trial. People v Kiah, 2017 NY Slip Op 08752, Third Dept 12-13-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/PSYCHIATRIC RECORD (CRIMINAL LAW, RAPE TRIAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/IN CAMERA REVIEW (CRIMINAL LAW, PSYCHIATRIC RECORD, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/VICTIM PSYCHIATRIC RECORD (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, RAPE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/RAPE (EVIDENCE, PSYCHIATRIC RECORD, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, PSYCHIATRIC RECORD,  SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NO OPPORTUNITY FOR APPELLATE REVIEW, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))

,

APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR BRINGING MERITLESS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the appeal in this real property dispute warranted sanctions against one appellant and his attorney ($500 each). It appears that the appellants entered a stipulation of settlement in which they stated they owned real property, knowing they did not own the property. The appeal was brought after Supreme Court enforced the stipulated settlement (requiring appellants to pay $1.8 million plus costs):

​

We reject the appellants’ argument that they were unaware, at the time of the stipulation of settlement, that the City of Peekskill owned the subject property. Nearly two years prior to the stipulation of settlement, in a proceeding to foreclose a tax lien, in an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), dated October 1, 2012, the City of Peekskill was granted permission to file a deed conveying the subject property to the City of Peekskill as owner in fee simple absolute. Dashley Realty appealed, and this Court affirmed the judgment … . The appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause to vacate the stipulation of settlement, as their purported mistake in not knowing about the City’s ownership when they entered into the stipulation of settlement on August 11, 2014, is belied by the order and judgment dated October 1, 2012, Dashley Realty’s appeal from that judgment, and attorney George W. Echevarria’s representation of Dashley Realty on that appeal.

Under the circumstances of this case, including, but not limited to, the appellants’ attempt to vacate the stipulation of settlement based upon their purported mistake, we find that much of the conduct of the appellant Cirilo Rodriguez and attorney George W. Echevarria, including their prosecution of this appeal, which is based upon the same meritless arguments advanced on the cross motion to vacate the stipulation of settlement, has been “undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation” (22 NYCRR § 130—1.1[c][2]). We find that this conduct warrants sanctions in the amount of $500 each on the appellant Cirilo Rodriguez and attorney George W. Echevarria … . ATS-1 Corp. v Rodriguez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08651, Second Dept 12-13-17

 

ATTORNEYS (APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR BRINGING MERITLESS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (SANCTIONS, APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR BRINGING MERITLESS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/SANCTIONS (ATTORNEYS, APPEALS, APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR BRINGING MERITLESS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))

,

SECOND DEPT ASKED FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department asked for further submissions to determine whether sanctions should be imposed for a frivolous appeal. After a judgment of foreclosure against the mortgagor, the mortgagor deeded the property to plaintiff. Plaintiff then brought a motion to quiet title which was dismissed based upon the foreclosure documents. The plaintiff then appealed, despite having brought identical proceedings in another matter which also had gone up on appeal:

​

Here, as in Carbone v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., a case involving the same plaintiff and almost identical facts, by submitting the judgment of foreclosure and sale and other documents from the prior foreclosure action, the Bank established that it had a defense founded upon documentary evidence; namely, that Carbone took the property subject to a valid judgment of foreclosure and sale, and that the instant action is an improper collateral attack upon the judgment … . Thus, since the Bank established that it had a defense founded upon documentary evidence which conclusively disposed of the plaintiff’s causes of action as a matter of law… , the Supreme Court properly granted the Bank’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint, and properly denied Carbone’s cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

In addition, since the plaintiff has raised arguments on this appeal that appear to be “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1]), the appeal may be frivolous… . Accordingly, we direct the submission of affirmations or affidavits on the issue of whether, and in what amount, costs or sanctions in connection with this appeal should or should not be imposed on the plaintiff. Carbone v US Bank N.A., 2017 NY Slip Op 08653, Second Dept 12-13-17

 

APPEALS (SECOND DEPARTMENT ASKED FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS TO DETERMINED WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/FRIVOLOUS APPEAL  (SECOND DEPARTMENT ASKED FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS TO DETERMINED WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))

,

FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive, full-fledged opinion by Justice Mastro (not fully summarized here), reversing Family Court, determined father, who had been excluded from the home because of sexual abuse allegations involving a child, was entitled to an expedited hearing pursuant to Family Court Act 1028. Although the father had been returned to the home by the time the appeal was heard, the court deemed the issue important and likely to recur thereby warranting an exception to the mootness doctrine:

​

Since the removal of a child from the family home and the exclusion of a parent from that same home require equal showings of imminent risk, and both result in similar infringements on the constitutionally protected parent-child relationship, we conclude that both trigger the same due process protections. Accordingly, in cases such as the one before us, where no “imminent risk” hearing is held before the parent is excluded from the household and the parent-child relationship is thereby severed, the holding of an expedited hearing within three court days pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, upon the parent’s request, is mandated so that the question of reunification of the parent and child pending resolution of the proceeding may be determined. Due process requires the parent’s prompt, full, and fair opportunity to contest his or her exclusion from daily interaction with his or her children in this manner. Matter of Elizabeth C. (Omar C.), 2017 NY Slip Op 08370, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, FAMILY LAW, FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (APPEALS, FAMILY LAW, FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))

,

DESPITE THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that defendant’s second degree murder counts were lesser inclusory counts of first degree murder. Therefore the second degree murder counts should have been dismissed upon the first degree murder conviction. The fact that this issue was not raised below or on appeal did not preclude dismissal by the appellate court:

​

… [A]lthough not raised by either party, modification of the judgment is required. “With respect to inclusory concurrent counts, . . . [a] verdict of guilty upon the greatest count submitted is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count submitted” (CPL 300.40 [3] [b]). The two counts of murder in the second degree upon which defendant was convicted are inclusory concurrent counts of the count of murder in the first degree upon which he was also convicted … . Consequently, defendant’s convictions of murder in the second degree must be reversed and the respective counts of the indictment dismissed. People v Davis, 2017 NY Slip Op 08214, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DESPITE THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS (CRIMINAL LAW, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined that wrong advice about his ability to appeal the denial of his speedy trial motion warranted reversal:

​

A defendant who has entered a plea of guilty “forfeit[s] his [or her] right to claim that he [or she] was deprived of a speedy trial under CPL 30.30″… .However, where, as here, the assurance on which a defendant’s plea was predicated is ineffectual to preserve the right to appeal, he or she is entitled, if he or she wishes, to withdraw the plea of guilty … .

Here, it is clear from the record that the defendant pleaded guilty in reliance upon a promise from the Supreme Court that, upon his plea of guilty, he would retain the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30. However, that promise could not be fulfilled …. Since the defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty … , the judgment of conviction must be reversed, his plea vacated, and the matter remitted … . People v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 08288, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEAS, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, GUILTY PLEAS, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, VACATION OF (APPEALS,  DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT))