You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

SUPREME COURT MUST RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT CAN CONSIDER THE ISSUE, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING; THE SENTENCE IN THIS DWI CASE WAS ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the case to Supreme Court, determined the trial court must rule on the motion for a trial order of dismissal before the appeal of that issue can be considered. The Fourth Department noted that the sentence imposed in this DWI case was illegal:

… [W]e may not address defendant’s contention because, “in accordance with People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]) and People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998] … ), we cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . motion as a denial thereof” … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a ruling on defendant’s motion … . …

… [W]e note … that the sentence is illegal insofar as the court directed that defendant serve a term of five years of probation, with an ignition interlock device for a period thereof, consecutive to the indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years on his conviction for violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4-a) … . People v Capitano, 2021 NY Slip Op 05225, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

,

THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE NEGOTIATED A PLEA DEAL WITH A CO-DEFENDANT REQUIRING TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR A MORE FAVORABLE SENTENCE; NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (F0URTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge assumed the function of an interested party when he negotiated and entered into a plea agreement with a co-defendant requiring the co-defendant to testify against the defendant in exchange for a more favorable sentence:

… [T]he court committed reversible error when it “negotiated and entered into a [plea] agreement with a codefendant[,] requiring that individual to testify against defendant in exchange for a more favorable sentence” … . We conclude that, “by assuming the function of an interested party and deviating from its own role as a neutral arbiter, the trial court denied defendant his due process right to ‘[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal’ ” … . We therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial before a different justice … . People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 05217, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONSIDER A THEORY OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER WHICH WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the jury instructions allowed the jury to consider a theory of prosecution that was not alleged in the bill of particulars. The defendant was charged with hitting and shaking the child victim, but the jury was allowed to consider defendant’s alleged inaction after the alleged assault:

“A defendant has a right to be tried only for the crimes charged in the indictment” … . ” ‘Where the prosecution is limited by the indictment or bill of particulars to a certain theory or theories, the court must hold the prosecution to such narrower theory or theories’ ” … . We agree with defendant that the People’s theory of depraved indifference, as outlined in the bill of particulars, was limited to defendant’s assaultive conduct, i.e., his infliction of head injuries by shaking or hitting the child, and that the court’s instruction allowed the jury to consider, in addition to the specifically delineated assaultive conduct, defendant’s “inaction” after the assault ended. … [D]efendant objected during the charge conference to a modification of the depraved indifference charge. The charge, as modified, allowed the jury to … consider “the defendant’s later inaction as a factor when considering the brutal, prolonged and ultimately fatal course of conduct,” and defendant objected on the ground that such proof was outside the scope of the bill of particulars. People v Faison, 2021 NY Slip Op 05184, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

THE 2012 SENTENCE IMPOSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WAS NOT ILLEGAL OR UNAUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW IN EFFECT AT THE TIME; THEREFORE A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE ON THAT GROUND IS NOT AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, determined the defendant’s motion to vacate his 2012 conviction because the sentencing court did not consider whether he should be afforded youthful offender status should not have been granted. At the time the law was changed to require consideration of youthful offender status the defendant’s case was not on appeal and the law-change was not made retroactive such that it could be considered in a collateral proceeding (motion to vacate):​

… [T]his appeal does not concern the legality of the sentence imposed after a determination had been made whether a defendant should or should not be accorded youthful offender status or, indeed, the legality of any aspect of defendant’s 2012 sentence. Rather, the appeal centers on the failure to determine, in 2012, whether defendant should have been given youthful offender status — a finding that ultimately goes to the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, … CPL 440.20 — a statute that empowers a court to set aside an unauthorized, illegal or invalid sentence — does not authorize the relief granted by Supreme Court … . …

… [I]n limiting the application of the new interpretation of CPL 720.20 (1) to “cases still on direct review,” the Court of Appeals expressly indicated that it was not available to permit “collateral attacks on sentences that have already become final” (People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d at 502). Thus, as a result of the Rudolph decision, convicted defendants gained the right to argue on direct appeal their entitlement to a resentencing at which the court will make a youthful offender determination. The Rudolph decision, however, did not authorize that relief in a collateral proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.20. In foreclosing retroactive application of the new rule announced in Rudolph to collateral proceedings, the Court of Appeals necessarily rejected the view that sentences imposed under its prior precedent were illegal, unauthorized or invalid. People v Vanderhorst, 2021 NY Slip Op 05141, Third Dept 9-30-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINANT WAS USING ONLY HIS FISTS FIGHTING THE MUCH SMALLER DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEADLY-FORCE-JUSTIFICATION-DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a strong dissent, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s request for a deadly-force-justification-defense jury instruction should have been granted. The person with whom defendant was fighting, Gibson, was five inches taller and 66 pounds heavier than defendant. Gibson testified the defendant struck him with a hammer and a meat cleaver. Although Gibson was using only his fists during the fight, he eventually rendered defendant unconscious with a single punch. The medical evidence did not support Gibson’s claim he had been struck with a hammer and a meat cleaver:

The jury acquitted the defendant of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and convicted him of assault in the second degree.  …

… [B]ased on the differences in size and strength between Gibson and the defendant … , the complainant’s own testimony that he held the defendant down and punched him in the face, the significant injuries suffered by the defendant, including a fractured ankle, Hall’s [a roommate’s] statement during the 911 call that “they’re killing each other,” and the significant factual questions presented regarding what weapons were used and by whom, a rational jury could have found that the defendant reasonably believed that deadly physical force was necessary to defend himself … against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force by Gibson … . … [B]ased on the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, a rational jury could have determined that Gibson, not the defendant, was the first person to use or threaten the imminent use of deadly physical force … . Under these circumstances, the failure to charge the defense constituted reversible error … . * * *

… Supreme Court failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. The court credited Gibson’s testimony despite evidence which … significantly called into question the credibility of Gibson’s story. … A criminal defendant has no burden to present evidence at trial to prove his innocence, including by showing that his conduct was justified and therefore lawful … . Instead, the burden to disprove justification falls on the People. People v Singh, 2021 NY Slip Op 05134, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILITY PLEA; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE AN APPEAL ALLEGING THE GUILTY PLEA WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, over a dissent, determined defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The court noted that the defendant’s waiver of appeal did not preclude an appeal alleging the guilty plea was not valid:

… [T]he defendant secured new counsel and made a written motion to withdraw his plea a little more than four months after he pleaded guilty. The County Court denied the defendant’s motion, without a hearing or any further inquiry into the defendant’s claims. At the subsequent sentencing proceeding, the defendant again asserted his innocence and again asked the court to permit him to withdraw his plea based on his attorneys’ failure to provide meaningful representation. The defendant’s application to withdraw his plea at the sentencing proceeding was based on his statements to the court and his prior evidentiary submissions, which tended to substantiate his contention that he had not understood the concept of constructive possession or the nature of the People’s evidence at the time that he pleaded guilty. These submissions were sufficient to cast doubt on his guilt and the validity of his plea … . The People did not allege any prejudice that would have resulted had the court permitted the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty at that time … . People v Gerald, 2021 NY Slip Op 05130, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

,

THE PEOPLE PROPERLY RELIED ON HEARSAY TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE TO CALL THE RELIABILITY OF THE HEARSAY INTO QUESTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department explained the People’s burden of proof when relying on hearsay evidence at a suppression hearing. Here the transit officers who witnessed defendant commit “farebeating” (providing probable cause) were not called to testify. The hearsay was deemed admissible under Aguilar-Spinelli and the defendant did not call the accuracy or reliability of the hearsay into question by cross-examination or the presentation of evidence:

Defendant’s main argument on appeal is that the People failed to meet their burden of coming forward with evidence demonstrating probable cause with respect to the underlying theft of services arrest — which created the circumstances for the testifying officer’s discovery of defendant — because they did not present any testimony from the Transit Bureau officers who had firsthand knowledge of the farebeating offense.  …

Probable cause may properly be established based on hearsay testimony … , such as the officer’s testimony about what he was told by the transit officers, so long as, under the Aguilar-Spinelli test, the People establish that there was “some basis” of knowledge for the underlying statement and that it was “reliable”… . The “some basis” requirement is satisfied where, as here, the information is based on personal knowledge … .

Although the People will fail to meet their burden at a suppression hearing where they rely exclusively on hearsay evidence and “the defense challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, whether by cross-examining the People’s witness or putting on a defense case” … , that is not the situation here, because defendant did not present any evidence, identify anything in the People’s case, or elicit any statements on cross-examination that undercut the veracity of the transit officers’ account of a farebeating, as relayed by the testifying officer … . The unsupported assertion in defendant’s moving papers that he was seized without reason was not sufficient to necessitate calling the transit officers as witnesses. People v Gerard, 2021 NY Slip Op 05089, First Dept 9-28-21

 

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARD WHO RECOVERED STOLEN PROPERTY FROM HIM WAS LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF THE POLICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether the store security guard who detained him was licensed to exercise police powers or was acting as an agent of the police. Although the defendant had already pled guilty and was sentenced, the information available to the defendant did not identify the person who detained him and, therefore, defendant could hot have subpoenaed employment records to ascertain the security guard’s employment status:

Under People v Mendoza (82 NY2d 415, 425, 433—434 [1993]), defendant is entitled to a hearing on the purely factual issue of whether or not the security guard involved in his detention was licensed to exercise police powers, or acting as an agent of the police. * * *

… [T]he felony complaint provided no information regarding defendant’s arrest, and the VDF simply indicated that the arrest took place on “May 27, 2027,” at “9:04 PM,” “Inside Bergdorf Goodman at 754 Fifth Avenue.” The individual who allegedly recovered the stolen material from defendant’s handbag was neither identified by name nor as an employee of Bergdorf.

This information could not have helped defendant further investigate whether the security guard was a private or state actor status. People v Sneed, 2021 NY Slip Op 05095, First Dept 9-28-21

 

, ,

THE SENTENCE AGREED TO IN THE PLEA BARGAIN AND IMPOSED BY THE COURT WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS LESS THAN STATUTORILY REQUIRED; THE SENTENCE WAS VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s sentence was illegal because it was less than statutorily required. Because the plea agreement included the illegal sentence, the sentence was vacated and the matter was remitted to give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea:

Defendant had previously been convicted of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3) in 2019. Inasmuch as that conviction was within five years of the instant plea of guilty to driving while intoxicated, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 (1-a) (a) requires the additional penalty of either five days in jail or 30 days of community service. As no such penalty was imposed by the court, the sentence imposed is less than is statutorily required and, therefore, is illegal.

“Where the plea bargain includes a sentence which is illegal because the minimum imposed is less than that required by law, . . . the proper remedy is to vacate the sentence and afford the defendant, having been denied the benefit of the bargain, the opportunity to withdraw the plea” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to County Court for resentencing in accordance with the governing sentencing statute, with the opportunity for defendant to withdraw from the plea agreement … . People v Gary, 2021 NY Slip Op 05052, Third Dept 9-23-21

 

, ,

APPELLATE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE ARGUED THAT COUNTY COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION; WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS GRANTED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department granted the writ of error coram nobis and remitted the matter. Appellate counsel should have raised the argument that County Court failed to consider whether defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender:

… [W]e grant the defendant’s application for a writ of error coram nobis, based on former appellate counsel’s failure to contend on appeal that the County Court failed to determine whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. As held by the Court of Appeals in People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497), CPL 720.20(1) requires “that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain”… . Here, the record does not demonstrate that the court considered whether to adjudicate the defendant a youthful offender, even though the defendant was eligible … . Although we acknowledge that the Court of Appeals decided Rudolph only shortly before former appellate counsel filed the brief on the appeal, because the holding in Rudolph compels vacatur of the sentence, the standard of meaningful representation required former appellate counsel to argue that, pursuant to Rudolph, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for determination of the defendant’s youthful offender status … . People v Slide, 2021 NY Slip Op 04982, Second Dept 9-15-21

 

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