You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , , ,

THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEAS, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE THE GUILTY PLEAS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter, determined defendant was not warned about the possibility of deportation based upon his guilty pleas. The matter was sent back to allow defendant to move to vacate the pleas:

The defendant’s contention that his due process rights were violated due to the Supreme Court’s failure to warn him that his pleas could subject him to deportation is excepted from the requirement of preservation because the record does not demonstrate that the defendant was aware that he could be deported as a consequence of his pleas of guilty … . Indeed, here, the record shows that the court failed to address the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the defendant’s pleas of guilty … .

… [W]e remit the matters to the Supreme Court … to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his pleas of guilty and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter … . Upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court warned him of the possibility of deportation … . In its report to this Court, the Supreme Court shall set forth whether the defendant moved to vacate his pleas of guilty and, if so, its determination as to whether the defendant made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing … . People v Jean, 2023 NY Slip Op 06380, Second Dept 12-13-23

Practice Point: If the record does not demonstrate a defendant was aware of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea, the matter will be remitted to give the defendant the opportunity to move to vacate the plea. The issue need not be preserved for appeal.

 

, ,

THE COURTS CAN COMPEL (MANDAMUS) THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION (IRC) TO DRAW THE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS; THE IRC IS ORDERED TO SUBMIT ITS REDISTRICTING PLAN BY FEBRUARY 28, 2024 (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the courts can compel (mandamus) the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to draw the legislative districts. The opinion is far too comprehensive to fairly summarize:

In 2014, the voters of New York amended our Constitution to provide that legislative districts be drawn by an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). The Constitution demands that process, not districts drawn by courts. Nevertheless, the IRC failed to discharge its constitutional duty. That dereliction is undisputed. The Appellate Division concluded that the IRC can be compelled to reconvene to fulfill that duty; we agree. There is no reason the Constitution should be disregarded. Matter of Hoffmann v New York State Ind. Redistricting Commn., 2023 NY Slip Op 06344, CtApp 12-12-23

Practice Point: The courts have the power to compel the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to submit a redistricting plan. The IRC was ordered to do so by February 28, 2024.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS MURDER CASE MADE SERIOUS REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WHICH WERE SUMMARILY DENIED WITHOUT AN INQUIRY; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS VIOLATED; NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have summarily dismissed defendant’s serious request for new counsel without making an inquiry and factual findings. Defendant’s right to counsel was violated:

In 2017, the defendant was charged by indictment with murder in the second degree, among other crimes. While the matter was pending, the defendant submitted to the Supreme Court a writing, dated December 24, 2018, in which he claimed that he had had no conferences or meetings with his assigned counsel, that counsel had failed to appear in court on several control dates, that there had been a complete breakdown in communication between the defendant and counsel, and that counsel’s omnibus motion contained numerous factual inaccuracies. The defendant also requested a six-week adjournment to attempt to secure representation from a particular attorney who purportedly had agreed to represent the defendant.

At a pretrial proceeding on January 4, 2019, the Supreme Court summarily denied the defendant’s application without making any inquiry. During a subsequent appearance, in June 2019, the defendant read a lengthy statement in which he recounted that his prior application was denied and listed his reasons for not wanting to be represented by his assigned counsel. * * *

… Supreme Court’s conduct in summarily denying the defendant’s application for an adjournment, without conducting any inquiry, and telling him that the court would not relieve assigned counsel and that his alternative was to represent himself pro se, violated the defendant’s right to counsel …. People v Scott, 2023 NY Slip Op 06261, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: A serious request for new counsel should not be summarily denied without an inquiry. Here defendant was denied his right to counsel by the judge’s failure to address his request. A new trial before a different judge was ordered.

 

, , , ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT INCLUDE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT ORDER; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS; ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court’s order failed to included the required findings of fact. In addition, the Attorney General should have been notified of defendant’s constitutional arguments:

County Court’s order failed to set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Correction Law § 168-n (3). The March 2022 order states that at a hearing held on an unspecified date, the court “set out its findings of fact . . . which support the assignment of points for each risk factor.” No such findings are set forth in the order and, if placed on the record at the hearing, no hearing transcript is contained in the record. Absent any record findings of fact and conclusions of law by the court, this Court is precluded from conducting a meaningful appellate review of the assessment of points and defendant’s risk level classification. As such, the matter must be remitted … . Further, to the extent that defendant raises direct constitutional challenges to certain portions of Correction Law § 168, as set forth in his memorandum submitted to County Court, the record is devoid of any indication that the Attorney General was timely notified of such challenges or whether the court ruled on any of the issues raised. In view of the foregoing, County Court’s March 30, 2022 order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings. People v Kelsey, 2023 NY Slip Op 06186, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: The Correction Law requires that an order in a SORA risk-level proceeding include findings of fact.

Practice Point: Where a defendant raises constitutional arguments in a SORA risk-level proceeding, the Attorney General must be notified.

 

, ,

WHERE, AS HERE, THE SORA COURT EXPRESSLY FINDS THERE WAS NO SEXUAL CONDUCT OR MOTIVE UNDERLYING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD, THE REQUIREMENT THAT DEFENDANT BE DESIGNATED A SEX OFFENDER VIOLATES DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, determined requiring defendant to register as a sex offender based upon an nonsexual unlawful imprisonment of a child violated defendant’s right to due process of law:

Defendant stole money at gunpoint from his aunt in the presence of his 10-year-old cousin for which he pleaded guilty to, inter alia, the unlawful imprisonment of the child. For this crime, New York requires that he register as a sex offender and comply with the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). It is undisputed that the crime was non-sexual and that the SORA court found that defendant is not a sex offender and poses no sexual threat. Nevertheless, the courts below felt constrained by People v Knox (12 NY3d 60 [2009]) to impose SORA requirements. Defendant contends that the holdings in Knox and its companion cases are distinguishable and do not control his as-applied challenge. We agree and conclude that requiring defendant to register violates his due process rights and does nothing to further the legislative purpose of SORA to protect the public from actual sex offenders. * * *

… [T]he core holding and reasoning in Knox does not control here where defendant’s criminal behavior and his lack of future risk of sexual harm to children distinguish him from the Knox defendants. The Knox Court’s conclusion that designating those three defendants as sex offenders and mandating their SORA registration was rationally related to the government’s interest in protecting children from sexual assault lacks force here, where defendant’s offense belies any such threat. Where a SORA court expressly finds that there was no sexual conduct or motive and no risk of future sexual offense, application of the sex offender label cannot be justified on the ground that a defendant may pose a risk of future sexual misconduct, and there is no further administrative burden in reaching that conclusion. Applying SORA to defendant violates his due process rights by impinging on his liberty interest to be free of the improper designation and registration as a “sex offender.”  People v Brown, 2023 NY Slip Op 05973, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: Here the SORA court found there was no sexual conduct or motive underlying the unlawful imprisonment of the child. Under that circumstance, to designate the defendant a sex offender violates his right to due process of law.

 

, , ,

THE MAJORITY REJECTED THE ARGUMENT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE A CONFRONTATION-CLAUSE CHALLENGE TO DNA EVIDENCE OFFERED BY A WITNESS WHO WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE DNA; STRONG, COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissenting opinion, rejected defendant’s ineffective-assistance claim based upon defense counsel’s failure to raise a Confrontation Clause challenge to the admission of DNA evidence:

Defendant asserts that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to argue that the admission into evidence of DNA reports through the testimony of an analyst who did not perform, witness or supervise the testing, or independently analyze the raw data, violated his constitutional right to confrontation. This argument is without merit. “Even assuming that counsel failed to assert a meritorious Confrontation Clause challenge, the alleged omission does not ‘involve an issue that [was] so clear-cut and dispositive that no reasonable defense counsel would have failed to assert it'” … . Nor, on this record, has defendant demonstrated that the alleged error was not a matter of legitimate trial strategy … .

From the dissent:

At trial, the prosecution admitted two reports containing DNA analyses through a criminalist who testified, based on his review of the file prepared by another criminalist, that defendant’s DNA matched DNA on a screwdriver recovered from the scene of the break-in. This evidence was therefore admitted through a surrogate witness in violation of the Confrontation Clause … . The question on this appeal is whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Confrontation Clause objection to this evidence’s admission. At the time of defendant’s trial, the law was sufficiently settled to support such an objection. Indeed, counsel recognized that the basis for the testifying criminalist’s conclusions was vulnerable to attack, as he asked the jury to reject those conclusions on the ground that the criminalist did not conduct the DNA testing. Given that the prosecution’s entire case rested upon this DNA evidence, counsel’s failure to challenge this evidence on Confrontation Clause grounds cannot be explained as a reasonable strategy. People v Espinosa, 2023 NY Slip Op 05971, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: The majority concluded defense counsel’s failure to raise a confrontation-clause challenge to DNA evidence presented by a witness who was not involved in the DNA analysis did not constitute ineffective assistance. There was a strong, comprehensive dissent.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE INVENTORY SEARCH AND THE ADMISSION OF CERTAIN TESTIMONY HE DEEMED PREJUDICIAL, AND HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO NEW YORK’S WEAPONS-POSSESSION REGIME REJECTED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a dissent, rejected defendant’s challenges to the inventory search and to purported prejudicial testimony allowed by the trial judge. Defendant’s constitutional challenge to New York’s weapons-possession regime rejected as unpreserved:

Defendant Carlos L. David challenges his conviction for two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (see Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) on several grounds. He argues that the police recovered the handguns that gave rise to his conviction during an invalid inventory search, and that Supreme Court improperly allowed prejudicial testimony at his trial. Neither argument provides grounds for reversal. David additionally argues that Penal Law § 265.03 (3) is facially unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen, 142 S Ct 2111 (2022). This argument is unpreserved, and for the reasons set forth below, we do not reach it. People v David, 2023 NY Slip Op 05970, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: The constitutional challenges to New York’s weapons-possession regime rejected as unpreserved.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO RESTRICTIONS ON VOIR DIRE, HIS ARGUMENT A PRISON SENTENCE DURING COVID VIOLATED THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO NEW YORK’S WEAPONS-POSSESSION REGIME, REJECTED; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE PRESUMPTION OF AN INTENT TO USE AN UNLICENSED WEAPON IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS RELATED TO GUN CONTROL AND JUSTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over an extensive dissent, rejected defendant’s challenges to his conviction:

Defendant George Garcia argues that his conviction for two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree … should be reversed because the trial court impermissibly limited questioning during voir dire. He also argues that his sentence—the statutory minimum term of 3½ years in prison—violates the Eighth Amendment given his risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19, and that the Appellate Division had the power to reduce his sentence below the statutory minimum. None of these contentions provides grounds for reversal. Garcia further argues for the first time in this Court that the statutory provisions under which he was convicted are unconstitutional in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen, 142 S Ct 2111 (2022). These arguments are unpreserved, and for the reasons set forth in People v Cabrera (decided today), we do not reach them. * * *

From the dissent:

The presumption in Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b) that unlicensed possession is evidence of intent to use the weapon unlawfully is unconstitutional and therefore defendant’s conviction on this count should be reversed and the count dismissed. Additionally, the court abused its discretion and prejudiced defendant by limiting defendant’s voir dire questions related to gun control and justification. Therefore, his conviction on the single other remaining charge should be reversed and a new trial ordered. People v Garcia, 2023 NY Slip Op 05969, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: Constitutional arguments attacking New York’s weapons-possession regime were not preserved.

Practice Point: The Eighth Amendment challenge to a prison sentence during COVID rejected.

Practice Point: Challenges to restrictions on voir dire about gun control and justification rejected.

 

, , ,

UNWARNED STATEMENTS MADE WHEN THE POLICE APPROACHED DEFENDANT GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR AND HANDCUFFED HIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE SUBSEQUENT CONSENT TO SEARCH, MADE AFTER MIRANDA WARNINGS, WAS NOT TAINTED BY THE UNWARNED CUSTODIAL QUESTIONING; DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUIONAL CHALLENGES TO NEW YORK’S GUN LICENSING REGIME WERE NOT PRESERVED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a two-judge dissent, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, determined defendant was in custody when the police approached him after defendant got out of his car and handcuffed him. Statements made at that time about the presence of weapons in the car should have been suppressed. However defendant’s subsequent consent to search the car, given an hour and a half after the officers initially approached defendant and after the Miranda warnings, was not tainted by the initial custodial questioning. The dissent argued the consent to search was in fact tainted. The court rejected defendant’s constitutional arguments attacking the validity of New York’s gun-licensing regime as unpreserved:

Preservation of a constitutional challenge, in particular, “ensures that the drastic step of striking duly enacted legislation will be taken not in a vacuum but only after the lower courts have had an opportunity to address the issue and the unconstitutionality of the challenged provision has been established beyond a reasonable doubt” … . For these reasons, we have carefully guarded the preservation rule against “erosion” … . * * *

… [A] reasonable innocent person in Cabrera’s {defendant’s] position could not have felt free to leave when three law enforcement officers approached him at night, on a residential street, and handcuffed him before questioning him about the firearms in his vehicle. The level to which the police restricted Cabrera’s movement was of a degree associated with a formal arrest. Nor does the record suggest that the defendant had any reason to believe that he would be handcuffed only for a limited duration. … [T]here is no record support for the conclusion of the courts below that Cabrera was not in custody for Miranda purposes. On appeal, the People have conceded that the defendant was subject to interrogation and that they did not argue below that the public safety exception applied. Custodial status is therefore dispositive; in the absence of warnings, his statements should have been suppressed. People v Cabrera, 2023 NY Slip Op 05968, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: Statements made after police approached defendant on the street and handcuffed him should have been suppressed, but the unwarned custodial questioning did not taint a subsequent consent to search given after Miranda warnings.

Practice Point: Constitutional arguments, here attacking New York’s gun-licensing regime, must be preserved before the Court of Appeals can address them.

 

,

THE ROADBLOCK VEHICLE-STOP WAS VALID; THE SEARCH BASED UPON AN ODOR OF MARIJUANA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VALID UNDER THE MARIHUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) BUT THE COURT REFUSED TO APPLY THE MRTA RETROACTIVELY; ONE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE TO PROHIBITING FELONS FROM OBTAINING GUN LICENSES HAD MERIT; THE OTHER DISSENT ARGUED THE ROADBLOCK PROCEDURE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a single-judge dissent and a separate two-judge dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction, finding the roadblock vehicle-stop procedure was valid and the search based upon an odor of marijuana was valid. The search would not have been valid after the Mariihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) was enacted in 2021. The court refused to apply the MRTA retroactively. Judge Rivera’s dissenting opinion, argued defendant’s argument against the ban on felons obtaining gun licenses had merit and the matter should have been sent back to create a record. Judge Halligan’s dissent argued the constitutionality of the roadblock was not demonstrated. People v Pastrana, 2023 NY Slip Op 05966, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: The Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA), which under certain circumstances (which were present in this case) prohibits a search based upon the odor of marijuana, does not apply retroactively.

 

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