You are here: / Constitutional Law
,

Because Defendant’s Resentence to Remedy the Failure to Impose a Period of Post-Release Supervision Was On Appeal, Defendant Had Not Acquired a Legitimate Expectation of Finality in His Sentence such that the Double Jeopardy Clause Was Implicated

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined, under the facts, the imposition of a period of post-release supervision [PRS] after defendant completed his sentence (which was illegal because it did not include a period of post-release supervision) did not violate the Double Jeopardy clause.  Because the resentence was being appealed, the defendant had not yet “acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence:”

Defendant … moved to vacate his conviction under Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.10. Supreme Court denied the motion to vacate the conviction. The court nevertheless noted that defendant's sentence was illegal because it did not include the mandatory term of PRS … and ordered that defendant be resentenced. Defendant was conditionally released in May 2008. One month later, Supreme Court resentenced defendant to the original concurrent terms of imprisonment, as well as a five-year term of PRS. In October 2009, the maximum term of his prison sentence passed.   * * *

The protection against multiple punishments protects defendants from having their sentences increased once they have acquired “legitimate expectations of finality” therein (Williams, 14 NY3d at 214). We explained in Williams that a defendant may acquire a legitimate expectation of finality in an illegal sentence only once “the direct appeal has been completed (or the time to appeal has expired)” and the sentence has been served (id. at 217).

In Velez [19 NY3d 642] , we addressed whether a defendant acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in an illegal sentence where a resentencing proceeding had been instituted but the term of PRS had not yet been imposed prior to the expiration of the sentence. We held that the defendant … acquired a legitimate expectation of finality (19 NY3d at 650). In this case, defendant has served his sentence, but the direct appeal of that sentence is not over; it presently is before us. Consequently, defendant has not acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence.  People v Cintron, 35, CtApp 3-27-14

 

,

Conditioning Co-Defendant’s Plea on a Promise Not to Testify in Defendant’s Trial Is a Denial of the Right to Present a Defense

Although the Fourth Department affirmed defendant’s conviction, the court agreed with the defendant that the People improperly conditioned co-defendant’s plea upon his promise not to testify at defendant’s trial and threatened to increase the co-defendant’s sentence if he did testify.  The trial court eliminated the problem by permitting the co-defendant to testify without exposure to a more severe sentence:

We agree with defendant that it was improper for the People to condition the plea of a codefendant upon his promise not to testify at defendant’s trial and to threaten to increase the codefendant’s sentence should he violate that condition ….. As the United States Supreme Court wrote in Washington v Texas (388 US 14, 19), “[t]he right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he [or she] has the right to present his [or her] own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.” Thus, “substantial interference by the State with a defense witness’ free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process as surely as does a willful withholding of evidence” … . Here, however, defendant was not prejudiced by the improper plea condition inasmuch as the court granted his motion to permit the codefendant to testify on defendant’s behalf without exposure to a more severe sentence, and the court advised the codefendant of its ruling …. . People v Whitfield, 99, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

,

City-Judge Pay Disparity Justified by Population of Cities

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court finding that the pay disparity between City of Buffalo and City of Tonawanda judges, as set forth in Judiciary Law 221-i, was constitutional:

It is undisputed that the disparate judicial salary schedule set forth in Judiciary Law § 221-i does not implicate a suspect class or a fundamental right, and thus it is subject to the rational basis standard of review… . Such rational basis review “is a paradigm of judicial restraint” … . “A statute subject to rational basis scrutiny is presumed to be constitutional, and the party challenging the statute bears the heavy burden of proving that there is no reasonably conceivable state of facts which rationally supports the distinction” … . Thus, “the State has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory classification. A legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data” … .

Here, we conclude that there is a rational basis for the salary disparity between Tonawanda City Court and Buffalo City Court judges and, thus, that the disparity does not violate equal protection… . The cities of Buffalo and Tonawanda, although both located within Erie County and separated by only 12 miles, are very different municipalities. Buffalo is the largest city in Erie County and the second largest city in New York State. Tonawanda, by contrast, is “[o]ne of the smallest cities in Erie County.” Nearly one third of the residents of Erie County (28%) live in Buffalo, while only 1.5% of the county’s population resides in Tonawanda. In 2009, Buffalo’s population was 18 times the size of Tonawanda’s, i.e., 270,240 residents as compared to 14,766 residents. Tonawanda City Court has one full-time judge and one “half-time” judge, while Buffalo City Court has 13 full-time judges. Buffalo therefore has 20,787 residents per judge, which is more than twice the 9,844 residents per judge in Tonawanda.

We agree with defendants that it is rational for the State to pay a higher salary to judges who serve a larger population both as a proxy for caseload and as an indicator of potential future filings. Cassata v State of New York…, 183, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

, , , ,

Involuntary Mental Health Patient Should Not Have Been Released Pursuant to a Habeas Corpus Petition Without an “Examination Into the Patient’s Alleged Disability and Detention,” Despite the Hospital’s Untimely Request for Continued Detention (in Violation of the Mental Hygiene Law)/Appellate Court’s Ability to Hear a Moot Case Explained (Mootness Doctrine)

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that immediate release of an involuntaty patient from a mental health hospital pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus because of the facility’s failure to comply with the Mental Hygiene Law provisions for continued detention was reversible error.  Supreme Court should have conducted an examination into the patient’s alleged disability and detention.  The court discussed the nature and origin of the habeas corpus petition and the relationship between a habeas corpus petition brought under the Mental Hygiene Law and under Article 70 of the CPLR (finding them to be in essence the same). In addition, the Second Department discussed the mootness doctrine which, under certain circumtances, allows an appellate court to hear  a moot case.  The habeas corpus petition here had been rendered moot by the patient’s release:

Generally, courts are precluded “from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances” …. . Typically, “an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” … . However, an exception to the mootness doctrine permits a court to review a case if the controversy or issue involved is likely to recur, typically evades review, and raises a substantial and novel question … .Here, the release of the patient renders this appeal academic. We nevertheless exercise our discretion to review the issues raised on this appeal pursuant to the exception to the mootness doctrine because the primary issue raised is an important one which implicates both the patient’s fundamental liberty interest and the State’s interest in protecting the mentally ill, and is one which is likely to recur. Further, the primary issue involved here may typically evade review because “[t]he Mental Hygiene Law contemplates that involuntary hospitalization in a mental health facility is often brief and temporary . . . [and the law] require[s] frequent periodic review of a patient’s status, and the release of the patient unless OMH is granted successive court orders authorizing retention” … . * * *

Here, the patient was initially involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 9 due to his alleged mental illness and, thereafter, the petition for a writ was filed on the patient’s behalf. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus was to determine whether the patient was being unlawfully detained (see CPLR 7002[a]… ). Therefore, in order to determine the cause and legality of the patient’s detention, the Supreme Court was required to examine the facts of the patient’s alleged mental disability and detention (see Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15[a], [b]; CPLR 7002). The Supreme Court’s failure to conduct the required examination constitutes reversible error. We note that the Hospital supported its untimely retention application with, inter alia, two certificates from the patient’s treating physicians. In those certificates, the physicians asserted that the patient was paranoid, unable to care for himself, and psychotic. Our determination should not be construed as an approval of the Hospital’s dilatory conduct in filing the retention application. There is no dispute that the Hospital failed to comply with Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33. Under the circumstances presented, however, the remedy for such noncompliance is not the immediate release of a patient. We also caution that our reasoning should not be construed to authorize an unlimited violation of article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law so as to allow a patient to be involuntarily retained, without a hearing, indefinitely. People v Munsey, 2014 NY Slip Op 01782, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

, ,

Prosecutor’s Creating the Impression Non-Testifying Witness Identified Defendant as Shooter Violated Defendant’s Right to Confront the Witnesses Against Him

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that a new trial was required because the prosecutor created the impression a non-testifying witness [Drake] had identified the defendant as the shooter.  Although the error was not preserved by objection, the court addressed the issue in the interest of justice.  The court noted as well that the defense counsel’s objections to the prosecutor’s comments during summation (which reinforced the impression) were erroneously overruled:

Generally, during cross-examination, a party cannot introduce extrinsic evidence or call another witness to contradict a witness’s answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching such witness’s credibility … . As the defendant correctly contends, during the cross-examination of Lloyd, the prosecutor improperly gave the impression that Drake, who did not testify, implicated the defendant while the police questioned her … . Notably, the prosecutor acknowledged at the second trial that Drake had testified at the initial trial, and that Drake had not identified the defendant as having been present at the party.

The defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him prohibits the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he [or she] was unavailable to testify, and the defendant ha[s] had a prior opportunity for cross-examination” (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 53-54; see People v Pealer, 20 NY3d 447, 453, cert denied _____US_____, 134 S Ct 105). Here, the defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him was violated.  People v Lloyd, 2014 NY Slip Op 01631, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

, ,

County Could Not Shift Obligation to Pay Property Tax Refunds to Taxing Districts

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, which includes extensive historical, theoretical, constitutional and statutory discussions of the issues involved, the Court of Appeals determined Nassau County could not shift its obligation to pay real property tax refunds from the county to its individual taxing districts. The county’s attempt to supersede a special state tax law exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority:

As limited by the State and Federal Constitutions' protection of individual rights and restriction of State power, the State Constitution establishes the State government as the preeminent sovereign of New York, and the three coordinate branches of the State government may exercise the entire legislative, executive and judicial power of the State, as entrusted to them by the people … .Given that the authority of political subdivisions flows from the State government and is, in a sense, an exception to the State government's otherwise plenary power, the lawmaking power of a county or other political subdivision “can be exercised only to the extent it has been delegated by the State”… .. Furthermore, because the Constitution expressly imbues the State government, rather than any locality, with “[t]he power of taxation” (NY Const art XVI, § 1), State law governs the tax field unless the State Legislature or the Constitution unambiguously delegates certain taxation authority to a political subdivision… . Matter of Baldwin Union Free School District v County of Nassau, 9, CtApp 2-18-14

 

, , ,

Constitutionality of Statute Allowing Defective Sentence to Be Remedied by a Sentence Without Post Release Supervision (CPL 70.85) Is an Open Issue Which Should Be Decided by the Sentencing Court in the First Instance/Crawford Motion Relieving Counsel of Perfecting an Appeal Because of the Absence of Non-Frivolous Issues Should Not Have Been Granted

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division should not have granted counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing the defendant on appeal on the ground the appeal would be “wholly frivolous.”  There is an issue whether the statute which allows resentencing the defendant to a term of imprisonment without post release supervision after post release supervision had been (illegally) administratively imposed is constitutional:

Defendant timely appealed the resentence and was assigned counsel, who reviewed the file and informed defendant of our decision in People v Boyd (12 NY3d 390 [2009]), where this court upheld defendant Boyd's sentence under Penal Law § 70.85, but left open the constitutionality of that statute, stating that it should be decided by the sentencing court in the first instance.  Despite this open issue, counsel filed a motion pursuant to People v Crawford … arguing that there were no non-frivolous issues to be raised on defendant's behalf and asking to be relieved as counsel.  Defendant filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that her sentence was illegal, and that she was denied effective assistance of counsel.  The Appellate Division granted counsel's motion and affirmed the resentence, without addressing defendant's pro se contentions (96 AD3d 1515 [2012]).  * * *

Defendant argues that her appeal was not wholly frivolous because she had two claims: (1) the claim that Penal Law § 70.85 is unconstitutional as applied to her case, and (2) that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel at every level.  We agree with defendant that the Appellate Division erred in granting the Crawford motion.  Without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits, at the time defendant's appellate counsel filed his Crawford motion, the claims to that court were not wholly frivolous and, therefore, the court should have denied appellate counsel's motion.  As a result, a reversal and remittal for a de novo appeal is warranted… . People v Beaty, 84, CtApp 1-16-14

 

, ,

Religious Brochure Urging Confession (Given to Defendant by a Deputy Sheriff) Required Trial Court to Make Sure Defendant Understood His Right to Refrain from Testifying at Trial—Trial Court’s Colloquy with Defendant Deemed Sufficient

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters affirming defendant’s conviction, the Third Department determined the trial judge had made an adequate inquiry to ensure that defendant understood his right to refrain from testifying at trial.  The inquiry was deemed necessary in this case because a deputy sheriff had given the defendant a religious brochure which stated that confession was the only way to avoid an “eternity in a prison called hell:”

… [A] criminal defendant has the right to testify in his or her own defense guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions … .  This fundamental “right to testify is ‘personal’ and . . . can be waived only by the defendant,” and any such waiver must be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made … .  To be sure, the “trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant’s failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his [or her] right” … .  However, “in exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances, judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant may be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected” … .

We believe that such colloquy was critically necessary here.  The privilege against self-incrimination – and, by extension, the decision whether to waive that privilege and testify – “is not concerned ‘with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion'” … .  But here the deputy’s actions in foisting the religious tract upon defendant constituted an effort by law enforcement to “interfere[] with the free and unhampered decision of [defendant] to testify” … .  Moreover, looking at “factors beyond the government’s control to determine whether [defendant’s] decision not to testify resulted from the government’s conduct,” defendant allegedly knew “chapter and verse” the biblical quotations in the tract, making defense counsel concerned that he was peculiarly susceptible to the exhortation made… . People v Robles, 105103, 3rd Dept 1-16-14

 

, ,

Motion to Vacate a Conviction Can Be Based Upon a Freestanding Claim of Actual Innocence—All Reliable Evidence, Even If Previously Barred at Trial or After Prior Motions to Vacate, May Be Presented at the Hearing

In a comprehensive opinion by Justice Hinds-Radix, the Second Department determined that a CPL 440 motion to vacate a conviction can be based upon a “freestanding claim of actual innocence.”  The defendant, who had brought several unsuccessful 440 motions, was deemed to have presented sufficient evidence of actual innocence to justify a hearing, in which all reliable evidence previously barred could be presented and considered:

The Due Process Clause in the New York State Constitution provides “greater protection than its federal counterpart as construed by the Supreme Court” … . Since a person who has not committed any crime has a liberty interest in remaining free from punishment, the conviction or incarceration of a guiltless person, which deprives that person of freedom of movement and freedom from punishment and violates elementary fairness, runs afoul of the Due Process Clause of the New York Constitution (see NY Const, art I, § 6… ). Moreover, because punishing an actually innocent person is inherently disproportionate to the acts committed by that person, such punishment also violates the provision of the New York Constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments (see NY Const, art I, § 5…). Thus, we conclude that a freestanding claim of actual innocence may be addressed pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h), which provides for vacating a judgment which was obtained in violation of an accused’s constitutional rights… . * * *

At the hearing, all reliable evidence, including evidence not admissible at trial based upon a procedural bar—such as the failure to name certain alibi witnesses in the alibi notice—should be admitted … . If the defendant establishes his actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, the indictment should be dismissed pursuant to CPL 440.10(4), which authorizes that disposition where appropriate. There is no need to empanel another jury to consider the defendant’s guilt where the trial court has determined, after a hearing, that no juror, acting reasonably, would find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  People v Hamilton, 2014 NY Slip Op 00238, 2nd Dept 1-15-14

 

, ,

No Constitutional Issue Raised by Claim that County Is Paying Too High a “Mobility Tax” Because It Does Not Receive as Much Transit Service as Other Counties Paying the Same Amount

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of two causes of action brought by a county challenging a “mobility tax” imposed upon counties served by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).  The county alleged the mobility tax was disproportionately high because it did not receive as much service as other counties paying the same amount:

The gravamen of both claims is that the funding provided to the MTA by the County is disproportionately high when compared to the transit services received by it in return.  The MTA undoubtedly provides services to the County and its residents, however, and “[e]ven a ‘flagrant unevenness’ in application” of the financing scheme used to fund the MTA is constitutionally permissible … .

Without more, the fact that the County purportedly receives “fewer benefits from the [MTA] than those received by other[s] . . . is insufficient to warrant the relief requested” … .  Plaintiffs have not pointed to any constitutional or statutory provision that is violated by this alleged misallocation of resources and, as such, the sixth and seventh causes of action present nothing more than a nonjusticiable and impermissible attempt “to substitute judicial oversight for the discretionary management of public business by public officials” … .  Supreme Court thus acted properly in granting the MTA defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Vanderhoff… v Silver, 516180, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy