You are here: / Criminal Law
,

DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT DURING THE PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT CONTESTING HIS CONSENT TO THE INTOXILYZER BREATH TEST; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO RAISE THAT SAME SUPPRESSION ISSUE DURING TRIAL; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s attempt, during trial, to suppress the results of the Intoxilyzer breath test was properly denied. Defense counsel had told the court, during the pretrial suppression hearing. defendant did not wish to contest the validity of his consent to the breath test and, consequently,  the prosecutor did not introduce a video of the procedure:

A defendant may move to suppress the results of a chemical test administered pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(3) (see CPL 710.20[5]) by filing a motion “within forty-five days after arraignment and before commencement of trial, or within such additional time as the court may fix upon application” (see CPL 255.20[1]). CPL 255.20(3) prescribes that for pretrial motions filed outside the 45-day limitation, the court “must entertain and decide on its merits, at any[]time before the end of the trial, any appropriate pre-trial motion based upon grounds of which the defendant could not, with due diligence, have been previously aware, or which, for other good cause, could not reasonably have been raised within the period specified.” The section also provides that any other motion not filed within the specified time “may be summarily denied.”

The record indicates that when counsel made the omnibus motion, dated September 12, 2017, defendant was well aware of the facts underlying the administration of the Intoxilyzer breath test and, for reasons that are not apparent, chose not to file a motion on that ground. People v Marte, 2021 NY Slip Op 04648, First Dept 8-5-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE INTERIOR OF THE CAR FOR MARIJUANA WAS JUSTIFIED, THE FORGED CREDIT CARDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND SIEZED; THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT THE CARDS WHICH INDICATED THEY WERE CONTRABAND UNDER THE “PLAIN VIEW” DOCTRINE; THE COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE CRITERIA FOR WARRANTLESS SEARCHES UNDER THE NYS CONSTITUTION IS WORTH CONSULTING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a comprehensive decision addressing the criteria for warrantless searches under the NYS Constitution, determined the credit cards seized in a legitimate warrantless automobile search for marijuana should have been suppressed. Although it turned out the credit cards were forged, there was nothing about their appearance which justified ascertaining the names on the cards under the “plain view” doctrine:

The record here established that Officer Zaleski had probable cause to search the center console of the vehicle—and the small zippered wallet that was contained within it—for the presence of marihuana … . * * *

Although Officer Zaleski lawfully encountered the three credit cards when he opened the zippered wallet to see whether there was marihuana inside it, the facts available to Officer Zaleski at the time he opened the zippered wallet would not “warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that [the credit cards] may be contraband” … . Indeed, at the time Officer Zaleski opened the zippered wallet, there was no evidence connecting the defendant to any burglary, or any other reason to believe that the three credit cards in the zippered wallet were stolen, forged, or otherwise illicit … . * * *

On this record, Officer Zaleski’s discovery of three credit cards stacked inside a small zippered wallet was insufficient, without more, to justify an additional search that went beyond the search for marihuana. People v Mosquito, 2021 NY Slip Op 04620, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT ENTER HIS GUILTY PLEA VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY; HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS PROPERLY DENIED; STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED AN INADQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant entered his guilty plea voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Therefore, defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea was properly denied. The dissent argued defendant demonstrated he did not have an adequate opportunity to consult with defense counsel:

The defendant … contended in his motion that he had inadequate opportunity to speak with his counsel regarding the case and any defenses. However, … when the plea court endeavored to inquire further as to an equivocal statement by the defendant that he was able to discuss “some” of the facts of the case with his counsel, the defendant terminated that inquiry, and confirmed that he had sufficient time to speak with his attorney. The defendant also does not dispute the People’s assertion that, while the defendant was out on bail, he and defense counsel met with the prosecutor to view surveillance video allegedly depicting the explosives and reckless endangerment crimes.  * * *

… [T]he record here demonstrates that the defendant was feeling pressure to decide whether to plead guilty and be remanded or face greater charges if the People presented the matter to the grand jury. Indeed, the defendant’s precise words were: “I am forced to plead because they don’t—they will put me in the Grand Jury.” However, as this Court has observed: “When offered benefits for pleading guilty and confronted with the risk of more severe punishment if a plea offer is refused, a defendant will certainly feel pressure to plead guilty. But such pressure does not render a guilty plea involuntary because ‘the imposition of these difficult choices [is] an inevitable—and permissible—attribute of any legitimate system which tolerates and encourages the negotiation of pleas'” … . People v Hollman, 2021 NY Slip Op 04617, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO SEAL A CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS CIVIL IN NATURE AND IS THEREFORE APPEALABLE, NOT WITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF A CRIMINAL-PROCEDURE STATUTE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZING APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, determined the denial of a motion to seal a criminal conviction pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 160.59 is appealable. Appeals in criminal matters must be authorized by statute. The court deemed the motion to seal to be civil in nature ant therefore not subject to the strict restrictions on criminal appeals:

Where, as here, the court issuing the order being appealed from possesses both civil and criminal jurisdiction, appellate courts look to “the true nature of the proceeding and to the relief sought in order to determine whether the proceeding was criminal or civil” … . Where the relief sought is “quintessentially, of a criminal nature”… , or an integral part of an ongoing criminal investigation, the proceeding falls within the court’s criminal jurisdiction and an appeal may not be taken from an order issued therein in the absence of express statutory authority … . * * *

By contrast, even when an order is issued pursuant to a criminal investigation or relates to a collateral aspect of a criminal proceeding, if the nature of the relief sought is civil in nature and the order can be said to be final and does not affect the criminal judgment itself, courts have found the matter to be civil and appeals from such orders are not constrained by the rule controlling appeals from orders in criminal proceedings … . People v Coulibaly, 2021 NY Slip Op 04616, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY DETERMINED DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY ENTERED WAS NOT PRESERVED; THE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF HIS BOYKIN RIGHTS AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s argument that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered was rejected by the majority as unpreserved. The dissent agreed the issue was not preserved but argued the judge’s failure to adequately inform defendant of the Boykin rights warranted reversal in the interest of justice:

From the Dissent:

Mindful that County Court was not required “to specifically enumerate all the rights to which . . . defendant was entitled”.. , as defendant notes, the court nonetheless failed to explain, let alone refer to, any of the constitutional trial-related rights that he would forfeit by pleading guilty … . Rather, at the plea proceeding, the court focused almost exclusively on defendant’s waiver of an intoxication defense, as well as any other potential defenses, and whether defendant understood the benefits and risks of going forward with a trial. The record also fails to disclose that the court “obtain[ed] any assurance that defendant had discussed with counsel the trial-related rights that are automatically forfeited by pleading guilty or the constitutional implications of a guilty plea” … . People v Simpson, 2021 NY Slip Op 04579, Third Dept 7-28-21

 

,

IN THIS RESENTENCING PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT SINCE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED IN 1998-99 AND SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AN UPDATED PRESENTENCE REPORT WHICH INCLUDED AN INTERVIEW WITH DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this resentencing proceeding, determined the sentencing judge could consider defendant’s conduct after the original sentence was imposed and should have ordered an updated presentence report, including an interview with the defendant. Defendant had been sentenced in 1998 and 1999 to 125 years of imprisonment. In 2019 defendant moved to set aside his sentence on the ground that is was vindictive and the People consented to setting the sentence aside:

The Supreme Court erred in determining that it had no discretion to consider the defendant’s conduct after the original sentence was imposed. In People v Kuey (83 NY2d 278, 282), the Court of Appeals noted that when a defendant comes before the court for resentencing, “the proper focus of the inquiry is on the defendant’s record prior to the commission of the crime.” However, the Court of Appeals did not purport to limit the sentencing court’s discretion. Indeed, in Kuey, the Court of Appeals further noted that the defendant was “afforded the opportunity to supply information about his subsequent conduct,” and that the court had discretion to order an updated presentence report regarding the defendant’s subsequent conduct, if it determined that such was necessary … .

Critically, unlike the resentencing proceeding in Kuey, the resentencing proceeding here was held because the original sentence was claimed to be vindictive, which is not merely a technical defect in the original sentence … , but implicates the original sentencing court’s failure to have observed sentencing principles before imposing sentence. Given the context under which the resentence was directed, the resentencing court must exercise discretion and give due consideration “to, among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the [resentencing] court and the purpose of a penal sanction, i.e., societal protection, rehabilitation and deterrence” … . People v Garcia, 2021 NY Slip Op 04558, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE TO THE PROSECUTOR’S NUMEROUS INAPPROPRIATE REMARKS, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND A NEW TRIAL WAS ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined prosecutorial misconduct deprived defendant of a fair trial. The errors were not preserved by objections, but the appeal was considered in the interest of justice. The prosecutor’s remarks are detailed in the decision and are too numerous to include here:

The prosecutor denigrated any possible defense, invoked the jury’s sympathy for the complainants based upon irrelevant evidence, vouched for the credibility of the People’s witnesses, and misstated the law on circumstantial evidence … . People v Beck, 2021 NY Slip Op 04556, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED BY A REQUEST FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a downward departure in this statutory-rape SORA risk level proceeding. The issue was not preserved because defendant did not request a downward departure but the appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

“In cases of statutory rape, the Board has long recognized that strict application of the Guidelines may in some instances result in overassessment of the offender’s risk to public safety” … . The Guidelines provide that a downward departure may be appropriate where “(i) the victim’s lack of consent is due only to inability to consent by virtue of age and (ii) scoring 25 points [for risk factor 2, sexual contact with the victim,] results in an over-assessment of the offender’s risk to public safety” … .

Since the defendant did not request a downward departure from his presumptive risk level in the County Court, his contentions on appeal regarding a downward departure are unpreserved for appellate review … . However, under the circumstances of this case, we address those contentions in the interest of justice … .

Considering all of the circumstances presented here, including that the subject offense is the only sex-related crime in the defendant’s history, and that the defendant accepted responsibility for his crime, the assessment of 25 points under risk factor 2 resulted in an overassessment of the defendant’s risk to public safety … . Accordingly, a downward departure is warranted, and the defendant should be designated a level one sex offender. People v Maldonado-Escobar, 2021 NY Slip Op 04502, Second Dept 7-2-21

 

,

IN A COMPREHENSIVE OPINION WITH DETAILED DISCUSSIONS OF THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE, THE STOP OF A VEHICLE BASED ON AN OBSERVED TRAFFIC VIOLATION, THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, AND THE VALIDITY OF AN INVENTORY SEARCH, COUNTY COURT’S DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE COCAINE FOUND IN THE VEHICLE IS REVERSED OVER TWO CONCURRENCES AND A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive, comprehensive opinion by Justice Miller, over two concurrences and a two-justice dissent, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the warrantless search of the vehicle in which cocaine was found was not demonstrated to be valid under the fellow officer rule, was not demonstrated to be valid pursuant to the automobile exception, and was not demonstrated to be based on a valid inventory search. In a nutshell, the claimed exceptions to the warrant requirement were rejected because they were not supported by the evidence at the suppression hearing. The detailed factual and legal analyses cannot be fairly summarized here. The opinion should be consulted on the issues addressed, including the propriety of the stop of the vehicle, because of the extraordinary depth of the discussions. County Court’s denial of suppression was based on the following findings. All except the reason for the stop (an observed traffic violation) were rejected on appeal:

The [county] court first concluded that the State Troopers had probable cause to stop the vehicle by virtue of “the fellow-officer rule.” … [T]he court cited to testimony that law enforcement officials had intercepted approximately 89,000 communications, and that some of these communications indicated that there would be a quantity of narcotics in the vehicle on the night in question.

… [T]he [county] court credited the testimony of one of the State Troopers who testified that he observed the subject vehicle exceed the maximum speed limit and fail to maintain its lane.

…[T]he [county] court concluded that the intercepted communications and the application of the fellow officer rule provided a lawful basis for the search of the vehicle at the outset of the traffic stop.

The [county court] concluded that the State Troopers were authorized to search the subject vehicle under the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment. In this regard, the court noted that one of the State Troopers had reportedly detected the odor of marihuana when he initially approached the vehicle after it was pulled over.

Finally, the County Court determined, as a third alternative ground, that the cocaine was properly recovered pursuant to a valid inventory search.  People v Mortel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04498, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

,

IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT AN INAUDIBLE RECORDING AND TO PROVIDE THE JURY WITH A PURPORTED TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined it was reversible error to admit in evidence an inaudible tape recording and to provide the jury with a purported transcript of the recording:

Whether a tape recording should be admitted into evidence is within the discretion of the trial court after weighing the probative value of the evidence against the potential for prejudice” … . “An audiotape recording should be excluded from evidence if it is so inaudible and indistinct that a jury must speculate as to its contents” … . “Even where tape recordings are inaudible in part, so long as the conversations can be generally understood by the jury, such infirmities go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility” … . “[I]n order to constitute competent proof, a tape should be at least sufficiently audible so that independent third parties can listen to it and produce a reasonable transcript” … .

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in admitting the subject recording into evidence … . The first approximately 25 minutes of the conversation between the defendant and the complainant on the subject recording is almost completely inaudible, as all that can be heard are the background noises of a restaurant … . Further, some of the remaining portions of the subject recording were “so inaudible and indistinct” … that the jury would have had to speculate as to their contents … . The error was compounded when the jury was given what purported to be a transcript of portions of the largely inaudible recording … . People v Melendez, 2021 NY Slip Op 04497, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

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