You are here: / Criminal Law
,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE (NO FORCE) WHEN HE WAS 18 IN 1996, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED A LEVEL ONE, NOT LEVEL TWO, RISK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined defendant, who was convicted of statutory rape (no force) in 1996, should have classified as a level one risk, not level two:

Defendant appeals from an order classifying him as a level two sex offender stemming from his 1996 conviction in Virginia for the statutory rape of a 14-year-old female “without the use of force.” Defendant was 18 years old at the time of the offense, which the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders characterized as an “isolated incident.” Defendant successfully completed both sex offender treatment and substance abuse treatment, and he has not been convicted of any other sex crime. Under these circumstances, we agree with defendant, in the exercise of our own discretion, that his presumptive level two classification overestimates his “dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . We therefore modify the order by determining that defendant is a level one risk … . People v Stevens, 2022 NY Slip Op 00581, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, ,

BECAUSE OF UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTORY LANGUAGE, DEFENDANT’S MICHIGAN CONVICTION WAS DEEMED A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE” EVEN THOUGH THE SAME CONDUCT IN NEW YORK WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE;” STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the result, while admittedly unfair, is required by unambiguous statutory language. For predicate felony purposes, a Michigan conviction was deemed a “sexually violent offense,” even though the same conduct would not constitute a “sexually violent offense” if committed in New York:

A ” ‘[s]exually violent offender’ means a sex offender who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense” (Correction Law § 168-a [7] [b]). A ” ‘[s]exually violent offense,’ ” among other things, is “a conviction of an offense in any other jurisdiction which includes all of the essential elements of any [New York] felony [enumerated in section 168-a (3) (a)] or conviction of a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred” (§ 168-a [3] [b] [emphasis added]). It is undisputed that defendant was convicted of a felony in Michigan “for which [he] is required to register as a sex offender in [that] jurisdiction” (id.). Defendant’s Michigan conviction thus constitutes a ” ‘[s]exually violent offense’ ” as defined by the second of the two disjunctive clauses that comprise section 168-a (3) (b). It follows that defendant was properly designated a sexually violent offender, even though he would not qualify as such had he committed the same conduct in New York … . People v Talluto, 2022 NY Slip Op 00575, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

,

DEFENDANT MAY HAVE PLED GUILTY AND ACCEPTED A 16-YEAR SENTENCE IN MONORE COUNTY BECAUSE HE WAS ALREADY SENTENCED TO 14 – 24 YEARS FOR ANOTHER OFFENSE IN ONTARIO COUNTY; ON APPEAL THE ONTARIO COUNTY SENTENCE WAS REDUCED TO FOUR YEARS; MONROE COUNTY GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant may have pled guilty and accepted a 16-year sentence in Monroe County because he was already serving a 14-24 year sentence for another offense in Ontario County. Subsequently, on appeal, the Fourth Department reduced the Ontario County sentence to four years:

“The critical question is whether the removal or reduction of the preexisting sentence nullified a benefit that was expressly promised and was a material inducement to the guilty plea” … . Here, when defendant pleaded guilty in Monroe County, the court expressly informed him that the aggregate 16-year term of imprisonment would run concurrently with the aggregate 14-to-24-year term already imposed in Ontario County, and thus the plea would result in no or relatively little additional prison time … . Once the Ontario County sentence was reduced as a result of our determination on the prior appeal to a term of four years, defendant lost the benefit previously conferred by the concurrent nature of the Monroe County plea, and “we cannot say defendant would have accepted the plea bargain . . . had it not been for his [14-to-24]-year sentence in the [Ontario County] case, now reduced to [four years]” … . People v Ringrose, 2022 NY Slip Op 00569, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, ,

“REFUSING A BREATH TEST” IS NOT A COGNIZABLE OFFENSE; A CONVICTION IS THEREFORE A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED ON APPEAL EVEN IF THE ISSUE IS NOT BRIEFED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of “refusing a breath test,” explained that it is not a cognizable offense. The court noted that it was obligated to correct this fundamental error which cannot be waived, even though the issue was not briefed on appeal:

… [T]he purported traffic infraction to which defendant pleaded guilty under count two of the indictment—refusing the breath test mandated by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (1) (b)—is not a cognizable offense for which a person may be charged or convicted in a criminal court … . People v Adams, 2022 NY Slip Op 00562, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

Same issue in People v Harris, 2022 NY Slip Op 00568, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, , ,

WHEN THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT WERE DISCUSSED BOTH TWO AND THREE-YEAR SENTENCES WERE MENTIONED; DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY A MOTION AND WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant was not clearly informed of the sentence, rendering his plea involuntary. Although the issue was not preserved by a motion, the Third Department considered the appeal in the interest of justice:

… [W]hen the terms of the plea agreement were placed on the record, it was stated that the prison term to be imposed would be two years. County Court then, in discussing defendant’s second felony offender status, stated that the prison term was three years but, thereafter, informed defendant that, if he violated any jail rules prior to sentencing, it would not be bound by the promise of a two-year prison term. The record does not reflect that there was any clarification or correction regarding the misstatements as to the agreed-upon sentence either during the plea colloquy or at sentencing before a three-year prison term was imposed. As “[t]he record thus fails to reveal that defendant was accurately advised of the essential terms and conditions of the plea agreement” … , we find that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. People v Lumpkin, 2022 NY Slip Op 00477, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

THIRD-DEGREE POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (PENAL LAW 220.16 (12)) IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THIRD-DEGREE POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (PENAL LAW 220.16 (1)); GUILTY PLEA VACACTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant pled to an offense which was not a lesser included offense of any offense in the indictment:

… [W]here the indictment charges two or more offenses in separate counts, a defendant may enter a plea of guilty to one or more of the offenses charged and/or lesser included offenses thereof” … . “For plea purposes only, lesser included offenses include not only those qualifying as such under the general statutory definition of lesser included crimes (CPL 1.20[37]), but also the specifically enumerated extensions of the lesser included offense concept, set forth in CPL 220.20(1)(a)-(k)” … .

Third-degree possession of a controlled substance in violation of Penal Law § 220.16(12) is not a lesser included offense of third-degree possession in violation of Penal Law § 220.16(1). The former subsection was not charged in the indictment, does not qualify as a lesser included offense under the general statutory definition, and is not included in the class of crimes that are deemed lesser included offenses of criminal possession of a controlled substance pursuant to CPL 220.20(1)(i) … . People v Acosta, 2022 NY Slip Op 00509, First Dept 1-27-22

 

,

DEFENDANT HAD BEEN RELEASED FOR 12 YEARS WITHOUT REOFFENDING AT THE TIME OF THE SORA HEARING; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s SORA risk-level assessment and designating defendant a level one sex offender, the fact that defendant had not reoffended between 2004 and 2018 was a factor warranting a downward departure:

A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of “(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [SORA] Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence” … . …

… [T]he defendant committed a sex offense in Georgia in 2004. In the time between that crime and the SORA hearing, which was held in 2018, the defendant was at liberty for approximately 12 years without reoffending. In light of the lengthy amount of time without reoffense, we conclude that the RAI [risk assessment instrument] overstated the defendant’s risk of reoffense. People v Addison, 2022 NY Slip Op 00445, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINANT’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT FROM A SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; PROOF OF SERIOUS INJURY RE: THE ASSAULT CHARGE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED IT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive partial dissent, determined: (1) the defendant was entitled to a new trial on the burglary charge because the identification procedure was unduly suggestive; and (2) the serious injury element of the assault charge was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

… [A]lthough the burglary complainant’s identification of the Facebook photograph was not the product of a police-arranged identification procedure, the complainant’s identifications of the defendant from a single arrest photograph were the result of unduly suggestive identification procedures, and those identifications should have been suppressed … . …

… [U]pon the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.05[2]), we conclude that the conviction of assault in the second degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence that the detective sustained a “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9). …

The record did not support a finding that the detective experienced substantial pain. At the time of his discharge from the hospital, the detective assessed his pain as a “3” and was advised to take Tylenol for pain. His “quality” of pain was characterized as “aching.” Furthermore, there was no evidence as to the duration of any pain. People v Wheeler, 2022 NY Slip Op 00442, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, ,

AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT DETERMINE A SUPPRESSION MOTION BASED ON TRIAL EVIDENCE; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE REVEALED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT MAY HAVE BEEN UNLAWFUL; BASED UPON THE LIMITED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANT WHEN THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS MADE, THE ALLEGATION THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO ENTER WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of a probable cause hearing, determined the evidence revealed for the first time at trial called into serious question whether the search of defendant’s apartment was unlawful. Prior to trial the information provided to defendant gave the impression the apartment was entered and searched pursuant to a warrant. At trial the police testified they entered the apartment two hours before the search warrant was issued. The defendant was convicted of drug possession. The suppression motion stated the police entered the apartment without defendant’s permission. Given the limited and misleading information available to the defendant at the time the suppression motion was made, the allegations in the motion were sufficient to warrant a probable cause hearing. The appeal was held in abeyance and the matter was sent back for the hearing:

… [T]he Appellate Division “may not make its own finding of an independent source based upon trial testimony” … . Thus, we cannot hold that the denial of the Mapp/Dunaway hearing was proper, and the claim unpreserved, due to legal arguments pertaining to the lawfulness of the search and based on evidence adduced at trial, well after the lower court ruled on the motion to suppress.

… [H]ere, the trial testimony is being used solely to determine the context of defendant’s motion, the extent of her lack of access to information …, and the extent of information withheld from the motion court prior to making its decision to summarily deny defendant’s motion. … [W]e find that defendant’s motion should not have been summarily denied pursuant to CPL 710.60, and a hearing should have been conducted to make the necessary findings of fact. People v Esperanza, 2022 NY Slip Op 00383, First Dept 1-25-22

 

,

GIVEN THE INITIAL LACK OF DISCLOSURE BY THE PEOPLE AND DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES ONCE THE PEOPLE DISCLOSED THE TRANSMISSION WHICH LED TO HIS ARREST, DEFENDANT ALLEGED SUFFICIENT FACTS TO WARRANT A MAPP/DUNAWAY HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant had alleged sufficient facts to warrant a hearing on whether the police had probable cause to arrest him:

… [D]efendant’s motion challenged the constitutional adequacy of “any transmitted description on which the seizing officers relied in detaining and arresting the defendant.”

Defendant’s access to information was limited, because … the People … did not disclose “by either voluntary discovery or otherwise, . . . the description radioed by the purchasing officer to the arresting officer” … . Indeed, … the People did not even specifically aver that such a communication occurred. … [T]he absence of factual allegations regarding the content of a transmission from the undercover to the arresting officer did not render defendant’s motion deficient. …

[D]efendant made allegations of facts within his knowledge that … were pertinent to defendant’s argument that probable cause to arrest him was lacking. … [D]efendant described his own appearance at the time of arrest to the extent of stating that he was a 44-year-old black man, and that there was nothing “particularly distinctive about his appearance” that would tend to “preclude the possibility of misidentification.” This description allowed for a comparison between defendant’s self-description and the transmitted description, once that description was disclosed. People v Fleming, 2022 NY Slip Op 00360, First Dept 1-20-22

 

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