You are here: / Criminal Law
,

CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS OF WHAT THE POLICE OFFICERS SAW WHEN THEY APPROACHED THE VAN IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF THE VAN; THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE VAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the possession of a weapon conviction, determined defendant’s motion to suppress a handgun found in a van in which defendant was a passenger should have been granted. Inconsistencies in the police officer’s accounts of what the officers saw when they approached the van rendered the People’s proof at the suppression hearing insufficient to demonstrate a lawful search incident to arrest:

The Supreme Court credited the accounts of both Ramos and Pimentel and concluded that what Pimentel testified that he had observed gave the officers probable cause to search the minivan for a gun … . However, the officers’ versions of events sharply conflicted with each other as to where the defendant was sitting in the minivan, and what he was doing, when the officers arrived at the minivan’s front windows. According to Ramos, the defendant was sitting in the front passenger seat, while Pimentel claimed that the defendant was sitting in the middle row, and attempting to conceal a gun in a bag at his feet. Ramos, though, did not see a gun, furtive movements, or a bag. It seems improbable that, if the defendant did what Pimentel said he did, Ramos could somehow have failed to notice it.

Ramos’s and Pimentel’s accounts both could not have been true, since both officers acknowledged that they approached the minivan simultaneously and reached the front seats at the same time. People v Austin, 2022 NY Slip Op 01306, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

ALLOWING THE PEOPLE’S INVESTIGATOR TO GO INTO THE JURY ROOM DURING DELIBERATIONS TO SHOW THE JURORS HOW TO OPERATE A DIGITAL RECORDER WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR THAT REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE THE DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO THE PROCEDURE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the People’s investigator should not have been allowed to go into the jury room during deliberations to show the jurors how to operate a digital recorder. Although the defendant consented to the procedure, the Third Department decided the error was a “mode of proceedings” error which did not require preservation:

Pursuant to CPL 310.10 (1), a deliberating jury must be “under the supervision of a court officer” or “an appropriate public servant” and, “[e]xcept when so authorized by the court or when performing administerial duties with respect to the jurors, such court officer[] or public servant[] . . . may not speak to or communicate with [the jurors] or permit any other person to do so” … . Certainly, the People’s investigator cannot be said to be an appropriate public servant to interact with the jury in the deliberation room. Also troubling is the lack of a record of what occurred while the investigator was in the deliberation room. Indeed, the “right to a trial by jury in criminal cases is ‘fundamental to the American scheme of justice’ and essential to a fair trial. At the heart of this right is the need to ensure that jury deliberations are conducted in secret, and not influenced or intruded upon by outside factors” … . Given that the procedure that occurred here, allowing a representative of the People to interfere in the jury’s secret deliberations, goes “to the essential validity of the process and [is] so fundamental that the entire trial is irreparably tainted”… , we must reverse and remit for a new trial.  People v Jones, 2022 NY Slip Op 01069, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESENTENCED ON THE ORIGINAL CHARGE PURSUANT TO CPL 420.10 FOR FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THAT STATUTE; RESENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, vacated defendant’s resentence. Once a defendant is sentenced, the court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter. Here, after it was determined defendant had willfully failed to pay the ordered restitution, defendant was resentenced to prison on the original conviction. By statute a defendant may be resentenced for failure pay restitution, but only after the court makes a finding the defendant is unable to pay due to indigency. No such finding was made here:

CPL 420.10 (3) provides that, when a court imposes restitution as part of a defendant’s sentence, the court can imprison the defendant if he or she fails to pay restitution; such provision authorizing imprisonment for failure to pay restitution can be set forth at the time of sentencing or may be added “at any later date while the . . . restitution . . . or any part thereof remains unpaid” (CPL 420.10 [3]). Although County Court therefore retained jurisdiction under the auspices of this statute, it erred in resentencing defendant pursuant to CPL 420.10 (5). As relevant here, CPL 420.10 (5) provides that, “[i]n any case where the defendant is unable to pay a fine, restitution or reparation imposed by the court, he [or she] may at any time apply to the court for resentence.” Resentencing is authorized “if the court is satisfied that the defendant is unable to pay the fine, restitution or reparation” (CPL 420.10 [5]). Here, there was no finding by the court that defendant was unable to pay the restitution due to indigency … . … [W]e refuse to equate defendant’s acceptance of the global agreement [agreeing to 81/2 to 25 years in prison including time served] with the application necessary to resentence him under CPL 420.10 (5) … . County Court could have sentenced defendant to a year in prison for his failure to pay under CPL 420.10 (3) and (4), but it did not. As it erred in utilizing CPL 420.10 (5), the resentence must be vacated. People v Marone, 2022 NY Slip Op 01070, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

, , ,

THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, JOINING THE 2ND, HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING, DESPITE ITS CIVIL NATURE; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined: (1) defendant was entitled to and did not receive effective assistance of counsel at the SORA risk-level proceeding (which is civil in nature). despite his decision not to appear; and (2) the SORA judge did not make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law, requiring remittal:

Despite SORA proceedings being civil in nature, not criminal … , we now join the Second Department in explicitly holding that SORA defendants have the right to the effective assistance of counsel, pursuant to the Due Process Clauses contained in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and article I, § 6 of the NY Constitution, because the statutory right to counsel in such proceedings (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]) would otherwise be rendered meaningless, and because SORA determinations affect a defendant’s liberty interest … .

… Although defendant waived his right to be present at the SORA hearing, he did not waive his right to contest the Board’s risk level recommendation or the People’s arguments and proof … . Counsel — who acknowledged at the hearing that he had “had no contact” with defendant — made no arguments, essentially agreed to the Board’s recommendation, and failed to require the People to admit any proof at the hearing or County Court to provide any reasoning for its determination. … The record … reveals that counsel, who did not communicate with his client at all and “failed to litigate any aspect of the adjudication,” did not provide effective representation … . As defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, upon remittal he is entitled to a new hearing with different assigned counsel. People v VonRapacki, 2022 NY Slip Op 01071, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK LEVEL PROCEEDING; ORDER REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court failed to make the required findings of fact for defendant’s request for a downward departure:

Defendant … argues that County Court erred in denying his request for a downward departure. Although the court did expressly deny this request in the order, it did not detail the factual findings in support of its conclusion. Thus, we are unable to ascertain the court’s reasoning for denying defendant’s request. Consequently, we reverse and remit for County Court to set forth its findings of fact for denying [*2]defendant’s request for a downward departure as required … . People v Harvey, 2022 NY Slip Op 01073, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT MADE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF HER PLEA AGREEMENT; SENTENCE REDUCED AND CONVICTION MODIFIED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reducing defendant’s sentence and modifying her conviction in the interest of justice, determined defendant had made good faith efforts to complete the anger-management program that was part of her plea agreement:

… [D]efendant entered into a plea agreement whereby she would plead guilty to second-degree assault, third-degree assault and endangering the welfare of a child, and the case would be adjourned for one year to allow her to complete a 12-week anger management program. If defendant completed the program, complied with an order of protection and had no new arrests, the People would allow her to withdraw her guilty plea to second-degree assault, and she would be sentenced to conditional discharges on the two misdemeanor convictions. Despite defendant’s diligent, repeated efforts to complete an anger management program, legitimate issues such as her inability to arrange childcare for her two young children after her 75-year-old grandmother, who had been caring for the children while defendant attended the sessions, broke her hip, prevented her from attending all the sessions. She enrolled in the program three times, each time beginning from the start, but could not complete the 12 weeks. At the time of sentencing, she had found, enrolled in and almost completed a different program close to her home with a schedule that allowed her to work and pick up her children after school. Although she did not complete the anger management program, defendant satisfied the remaining terms of the plea agreement. Under these circumstances, in the interests of justice we accordingly reduce the conviction and modify the sentence … . People v Perez, 2022 NY Slip Op 01104, Second Dept 2-17-22

 

,

THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT IS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH,” AND, IF SO WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; THE JUDGE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT A GUILTY PLEA TO SECOND DEGREE MURDER FROM THE JUVENILE DEFENDANT; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined: (1) because defendant pled guilty to “armed felonies,” the judge was required to determine on the record whether defendant was an “eligible youth” and, if so, whether he should be afforded youthful offender status; (2) the judge was not authorized to accept a guilty plea for second degree murder from the juvenile defendant; and (3) the waiver of appeal was invalid:

… Supreme Court was required to determine on the record whether the defendant was an “eligible youth” (CPL 720.10[2][a][ii]), by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10(3), and, if so, whether he should be afforded youthful offender status … . …

… Supreme Court was not authorized to accept a plea of guilty to count 3 [second degree murder]. As a juvenile offender, the defendant cannot be held criminally responsible for felony murder where the underlying felony, attempted robbery, is a crime for which he cannot be held criminally responsible (see CPL 1.20[42][2]; Penal Law § 30.00[2]; People v Stowe, 15 AD3d 597, 598; Matter of Tracy C., 186 AD2d 250, 251; People v Smith, 152 AD2d 56, 61). Accordingly, … the defendant’s plea of guilty to murder in the second degree … must be set aside … .

… Supreme Court’s oral colloquy and written appeal waiver mischaracterized the nature of the appeal waiver as an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal and a forfeiture of the attendant right to counsel and poor person relief … . People v Shelton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01050, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

,

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT MEANINGFULLY RESPOND TO A NOTE FROM THE JURY; RE-READING THE ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; CONVICTION REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed the judgment of conviction and ordered a new trial because the trial judge did not meaningfully respond to a note from the jury. Under the facts here, re-reading the original instructions was not sufficient:

… [W]hen the jury was deliberating, the County Court failed to meaningfully respond to one of the jury’s notes. “Pursuant to CPL 310.30, the trial court has an obligation to meaningfully respond to all questions from the jury during deliberations” … . “Although simply rereading the original instructions may, under the appropriate circumstances, constitute a meaningful response” … , here, it was error for the court to respond to the jury’s last question about the elements of one of the charges by simply rereading its original instructions. The jury had previously sent a note about that charge demonstrating its initial confusion about that instruction … . The record reflects that defense counsel and the court perceived that, with respect to the jury note at issue, the jury may have been asking whether the defendant was required to know of the falsity of the information in the document that was alleged to contain false information at the time she submitted it to the Department of Health investigator. Notwithstanding its perception about the jury’s inquiry, the court did not seek any further clarification from the jury about that note. Under these circumstances, at a minimum, the court should have asked the jurors to again clarify their request … . People v Manzano, 2022 NY Slip Op 01040, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT “I WOULD LOVE TO GO PRO SE” WAS NOT A DEFINITIVE REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND THEREFORE THE STATEMENT DID NOT TRIGGER THE NEED FOR A SEARCHING INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined defendant’s statement “I would love to go pro se” was not a definitive commitment to self-representation and therefore did not trigger an inquiry by the judge:

… [D]efendant did not clearly and unequivocally request to proceed pro se. During a colloquy with the trial court, defendant referenced the unsuccessful application to relieve his assigned counsel made at his prior appearance, and he renewed that application, claiming that counsel was “ineffective.” The court denied the application and rejected defendant’s renewed attempt to read aloud from what defendant had previously referred to as “my testimony.” Upon review of the record as a whole, defendant’s retort, “I would love to go pro se,” immediately after the court’s denial of his applications “d[id] not reflect a definitive commitment to self-representation” that would trigger a searching inquiry by the trial court … . People v Duarte, 2022 NY Slip Op 00960, Ct App 2-15-22

 

, , ,

THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the so-called two-hour rule does not apply to a driver’s license revocation administrative hearing after a DWI arrest. Within two hours of arrest the police can warn the driver that a refusal to submit to the blood-alcohol breath test is admissible at trial. If the request to submit to the test is made and the refusal warnings are given more than two hours after arrest, however, the refusal is not admissible at trial. Here the petitioner refused the DWI breath test three hours after arrest, after the refusal warnings were given. He argued the two-hour rule should apply and the refusal should not be considered at the Department of Motor Vehicle’s (DMV’s) administrative license revocation hearing:

Petitioner’s reliance on the statutory interpretation analysis in People v Odum [31 NY3d 344] as support for a motorist’s substantive right to refuse a chemical test without consequence is misplaced. Odum addressed the admissibility at trial of the results of a chemical test administered more than two hours after the defendant’s arrest, and whether the refusal warnings, including the inaccurate warning regarding the use of any refusal at a criminal trial, as given to him rendered his consent to the test involuntary. We emphasized that the 1973 statute authorizing the admissibility of evidence of a test refusal at a criminal trial was in derogation of common law and concluded as a result that the statutory provision authorizing such admission—Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (f)—had to be strictly construed to include the two-hour rule … . In stark contrast, the limitation on the scope of the revocation hearing in section 1194 (2) (c) is not in derogation of the common law and is a subsequently enacted provision that specifically governs the issues that may be considered at an administrative hearing … . Matter of Endara-Caicedo v Vehicles, 2022 NY Slip Op 00959, CtApp 2-15-22

 

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