You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS A DISBARRED ATTORNEY, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should have ensured defendant knew the risks of conducting the trial pro se before allowing defendant, a disbarred attorney, to represent himself:

A court must determine that the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel is made competently, intelligently, and voluntarily before allowing that defendant to represent himself or herself … . In order to make that evaluation, the court “must undertake a ‘searching inquiry’ designed to ‘insur[e] that the defendant [is] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel'” … . The court’s inquiry “must accomplish the goals of adequately warning a defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se, and apprising a defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication” … . Nonetheless, no specific litany is required and a reviewing court may look to the whole record, not simply to the questions asked and answers given during a waiver colloquy, in order to determine whether a defendant actually understood the dangers of self-representation … . Subsequent warnings, however, cannot cure a trial court’s earlier error in not directing the defendant’s attention to the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation … .

Here, although the record demonstrates that the Supreme Court was aware of the defendant’s pedigree information, including his status as a disbarred attorney, the court failed to ascertain that the defendant was aware of the risks inherent in proceeding without a trial attorney and the benefits of having counsel represent him at trial … . Contrary to the People’s contention, there is nothing in the record that demonstrates that the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation were known by the defendant … , as the court neither “tested defendant’s understanding of choosing self-representation nor provided a reliable basis for appellate review” … . People v Crispino, 2021 NY Slip Op 04918, Second Dept 9-1-21

 

THE PEOPLE FAILED TO COMPLETE PROVIDING DISCOVERY BY THE TIME THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS FILED PURSUANT TO CPL 30.30 (5); DEFENDANT’S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department granted defendant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus releasing him from incarceration or reducing his bail. The speedy trial statute was violated because discovery had not been completed before the People filed the certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL 30.30 (5):

The current statutory framework of CPL 245.10 “abolishes the prior mechanism for obtaining discovery through serving a demand upon the People and instead requires the People provide the discovery listed in CPL 245.20 ‘automatically’ within the deadlines established” therein … . “As discovery demands are now defunct, the exclusion provided for in [CPL 245.10] subdivision (4)(a) is no longer applicable to the period of time when the defendant is waiting for discovery to be provided by” the People … .

Here, contrary to the People’s contention, their filing of the certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL 30.30(5) could not be deemed complete until all of the material and information identified in the certificate as subject to discovery and electronically shared with the defendant was actually produced to the defendant, pursuant to CPL 245.50(1) and (3) … . … [T]he substitution of a different assistant district attorney did not constitute an exceptional circumstance that would render excludable for speedy trial purposes the time period between the date to which the Supreme Court adjourned the matter for the filing of the People’s response to the defendant’s omnibus motion, and the date upon which the People ultimately filed their response … . Thus, the People are chargeable with the time between the court-imposed deadline to respond to the omnibus motion and the date on which the People actually filed a response … . … [S]ince more than 90 days of delay in bringing [defendant] to trial … are chargeable to the People, CPL 30.30(2)(a) requires that he be released on bail which he is capable of meeting, or upon his own recognizance … . People ex rel. Ferro v Brann, 2021 NY Slip Op 04897, Second Dept 8-27-21

 

, , ,

THE SMELL OF PCP PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS CHASTISED FOR FAILURE TO CALL THE COURT’S ATTENTION TO CONTRARY AUTHORITY, UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS THAT THE APPEAL PRESENTED A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY, MISCONDUCT AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST AN ARRESTING OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).

THIS OPINION WAS VACATED ON JANUARY 28, 2022, AND REPLACED WITH 2022 NY Slip Op 00560

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined the police officer’s (Dorchester’s) testimony at the suppression hearing established probable cause to search defendant’s car based upon the smell of PCP, or, as the court described it, “olfactory detection of street-level PCP.” The opinion was as much directed to improprieties in the appellate brief as to  the “olfactory detection of PCP:”

“[A]s soon as I walked up to the vehicle,” Dorchester testified, “I could smell a really strong chemical odor that was familiar to myself as PCP.” Dorchester had received PCP training at the police academy; he regularly received updated training on PCP and other drugs; and he had encountered PCP and its distinctive smell “hundreds” of times over the course of his career as a police officer. Based on his training and experience, Dorchester testified, he immediately recognized the odor emanating from defendant’s vehicle as PCP. When pressed on whether he could have been smelling something else, Dorchester held firm: the smell of PCP, he explained, was “pretty distinct.” * * *

[I]t is astoundingly inaccurate for defendant’s brief to assert that “[t]his is a case of first impression.” Moreover, the representation in defendant’s brief that “none of the Appellate Divisions . . . has ever passed upon the question of whether the smell of PCP may, standing alone, constitute probable cause to search” is an unacceptable dereliction of counsel’s duty of candor to our Court, for the First Department has done precisely that in two separate cases … . And given that Sanchez [168 AD3d 584] involved a car search, the statement in defendant’s brief that “no appellate case law from this state . . . has approved the search of a vehicle based solely on the smell of PCP” is yet another misrepresentation of the caselaw. We take this opportunity to echo the First Department’s monition that “counsel has an obligation to bring adverse authority to [our] attention” … . * * *

… [D]efendant’s appellate brief levels serious allegations of perjury, official misconduct, and federal civil rights violations against officer Dorchester. The record, however, lacks any proof to substantiate appellate counsel’s accusations. It is one thing to suggest that Dorchester’s testimony was legally insufficient to justify the search … . But it is quite another thing to file a brief that directly, repeatedly, and unnecessarily accuses Dorchester of serious crimes without evidentiary support. Counsel’s “baseless assertions are shockingly irresponsible” … . People v Fudge, 2021 NY Slip Op 04801, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY APPLIED THE DISCOVERY STATUTE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE ORDER TO TURN OVER THE ROSARIO MATERIAL ONE WEEK BEFORE TRIAL WAS MADE, FINDING THE ORDER PROPER; THE CONCURRENCE AGREED BUT ARGUED THE COURT SHOULD EXPLICITLY RULE THAT THE DISCOVERY STATUTE ENACTED IN 2019 SHOULD ALWAYS BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a concurrence, affirmed defendant’s conviction. One of the issues in the appeal was whether it was appropriate for the court to order the prosecution to turn over Rosario material one week before trial. The majority ruled the order was proper under the former law, CPL former 240.45. The concurrence agreed but argued the court should decide whether the current law, enacted in 2019 (see CPL 245.10 [1] [a]; 245.20) should always be applied prospectively:

We reject defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s failure to produce a video-recorded statement of the victim until one week prior to trial. Defendant does not dispute that the recording constitutes Rosario material. Under the discovery rules in effect at the time of defendant’s trial, “[w]here, as here, [a] witness[ is] not called to testify at a pretrial hearing, Rosario material need not be disclosed until ‘[a]fter the jury has been sworn and before the prosecutor’s opening address’ ” ( … CPL former 240.45 [1] [a]). Neither party requested that this Court consider the retroactivity of the new discovery statute now in effect. People v Austen, 2021 NY Slip Op 04798, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BEFORE SENTENCING HIM AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined County Court was obligated to determine whether defendant was a second violent felony offender before sentencing defendant as a second felony offender:

Where it is apparent at the time of sentencing that a defendant may be a second violent felony offender, the People are required to file a second violent felony offender statement in accordance with CPL 400.15 and, if appropriate, the court is then required to sentence the defendant as a second violent felony offender … . Here, no such statement was filed, although the People were aware that, approximately 10 years earlier, defendant had been incarcerated in North Carolina for a period of approximately 38 months on a prior conviction of voluntary manslaughter … . Had the court concluded based on that predicate offense that defendant is a second violent felony offender for this class C violent felony, the court would have been constrained by statute to impose a sentence that includes a determinate term of incarceration of not less than seven years and not more than 15 years … , and thus the six-year term of incarceration that defendant actually received pursuant to his plea agreement would have been illegal. People v Smith, 2021 NY Slip Op 04883, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

DEFENDANT MADE A VALID REQUEST TO APPEAR IN THE GRAND JURY BEFORE THE AMENDED INDICTMENT WAS FILED; THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY DECLINED THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY WAS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, dismissing the indictment, determined defendant should have been allowed to testify before the grand jury:

CPL 190.50 (5) (a) provides that a defendant’s request to testify is timely as long as it is made prior to the filing of the indictment” … . Here, defendant’s June 8, 2017 notice, which ” ‘satisfied the statutory requirements for notifying the People of a request to appear before the grand jury’ ” … , was received by the District Attorney on the same day, prior to the filing of the amended indictment on June 9, 2017. Contrary to the contention of the People and the rationale of the court, it is of no moment under the statute that defendant had previously declined the opportunity to testify … . “Where, as here, defendant’s request to testify is received after the grand jury has voted, but before the filing of the indictment, defendant is entitled to a reopening of the proceeding to enable the grand jury to hear defendant’s testimony and to revote the case, if the grand jury be so advised” … . People v Royal-Clanton, 2021 NY Slip Op 04856, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s for cause challenge to a juror should have been granted:

… [T]he prospective juror in question himself expressed “doubt [as to his] own ability to be impartial in the case at hand” … when he stated during voir dire that he was “not sure” whether he could be fair and impartial due to his family members’ experience with domestic violence … . The court erred when it did not obtain thereafter any “unequivocal assurance” from the prospective juror that he could render an impartial verdict … . People v Tillmon, 2021 NY Slip Op 04848, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

,

THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THAT THE SENTENCE RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH A SENTENCE WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN IMPOSED BY A DIFFERENT COURT; THE APPROPRIATE APPELLATE REMEDY IS TO STRIKE THE DIRECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, In a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined the sentencing court did not have the authority to order the sentence to run consecutively with a sentence that had not yet been imposed by a different court. The appropriate appellate remedy is to strike the directive, rather than send the matter back for resentencing:

A sentencing court has no power to dictate whether its sentence will run concurrently or consecutively to another sentence that has not yet been imposed. When a sentencing court violates that rule and purports to direct the relationship between its present sentence and an anticipated forthcoming sentence, the proper remedy is usually to strike the improper directive, not to remit for a new sentencing proceeding at which the court could exercise the very power it lacked originally. * * *

Rather than remitting for resentencing, the proper remedy under these circumstances is to simply vacate County Court’s improper directive with respect to consecutive sentencing. That remedy will put defendant in the same position as if County Court had not issued that illegal directive in the first place. Such a remedy will also adequately “protect” the People’s interests, since it will place them in the exact position they would have occupied had County Court not issued its illegal directive. Indeed, because the People had no legitimate right or interest in County Court’s original illegal sentence, the People have no right or interest that could be “protected” with a remittal order calculated only to achieve the very outcome — consecutive sentencing — that they had no right to obtain in the first place. People v Barthel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04834, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

,

SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO OPEN THE DOOR TO DEFENDANT’S HOME AND SHE SHOT THROUGH THE DOOR, KILLING HER BOYFRIEND; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A “LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STRONG DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, ordering a new trial on the possession of a weapon charge, over a strong dissent, ,determined defendant was entitled to a “lawful temporary possession of a weapon” jury instruction. Someone was trying to open the door to defendant’s home and she shot through the door, killing her boyfriend. She was acquitted of homicide:

Defendant testified that she had inadvertently discovered the firearm while attempting to protect herself in the face of an imminent threat, i.e., a person forcibly trying to enter her home. Specifically, she thought that her estranged husband, who had previously attacked her in her home, was the person attempting to forcibly enter the home. She discovered the firearm while trying to find in her kitchen an object to defend herself, and she did not know beforehand that the firearm was there. When the person at the door continued trying to enter the home, defendant shot through the door to scare him away. Thereafter, defendant saw that she had shot the victim—her boyfriend. She then dropped the firearm, and started to provide first aid. The firearm was not recovered after the shooting, and defendant did not know what happened to it. …

… [W]e conclude that there is a reasonable view of the evidence … that she came into possession of the firearm in a legally excusable manner that was not ” ‘utterly at odds with [any] claim of innocent possession’ ” … . …

We also conclude … there is a reasonable view thereof that defendant’s use of the firearm did not require a finding that she had used it in a dangerous manner … . People v Ruiz, 2021 NY Slip Op 04827, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF AN AFFIDAVIT FROM TRIAL COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on the motion to vacate the conviction on ineffective assistance grounds, despite the absence of an affidavit from trial counsel:

[Defendant’s] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was properly raised on his CPL 440.10 motion inasmuch as it is based on matters outside the trial record … . Here, defendant’s submissions on the motion raise factual issues requiring a hearing concerning trial counsel’s failure to interview and call the two exculpatory witnesses … , even in the absence of an affidavit from trial counsel … . We thus conclude that defendant is entitled to a hearing on his entire claim of ineffective assistance of counsel inasmuch as ” ‘such a claim constitutes a single, unified claim that must be assessed in totality’ ” … . People v Ross, 2021 NY Slip Op 04820, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

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