You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM, STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT WARRANT AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s imposition of an upward departure from the SORA risk assessment guidelines, explained that the existence of a family relationship with the victim, standing alone, does not warrant an upward departure:

People seek an upward departure, they must identify an aggravating factor that tends to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines, and prove the facts in support of the aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence … .

Here, as we held in People v Rodriguez (_____ AD3d _____, 2021 NY Slip Op 03475 [2d Dept]), the existence of a familial relationship between the offender and the victim, standing alone, does not constitute an aggravating factor for purposes of granting an upward departure. That relationship has already been taken into account by the Guidelines … , in which the board deliberately excluded familial relationships from the assessment of points on the RAI [risk assessment instrument] and expressly determined that intrafamilial offenders do not pose a comparatively higher risk of recidivism or danger to the community … . People v Velasquez, 2021 NY Slip Op 03625, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

, ,

THE BASES FOR THE UPWARD DEPARTURE WERE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES; UPWARD DEPARTURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court’s upward departure from the SORA guidelines, determined the bases for the departure had been taken into account by the guidelines:

County Court lacked the discretion to upwardly depart from the presumptive risk assessment level because the People failed, as a matter of law, to identify an aggravating factor that was not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines. In seeking an upward departure from the presumptive risk assessment level established at the hearing, the People relied upon the defendant’s prior conviction of public lewdness and indications in the record suggesting that he had not accepted responsibility for his sexual misconduct. The defendant’s prior conviction of public lewdness constituted a misdemeanor sex crime, which is already accounted for under risk factor 9 of the Guidelines … . Similarly, an offender’s lack of acceptance of responsibility is accounted for under risk factor 12 … . ​People v Mott, 2021 NY Slip Op 03621, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF ON RISK FACTORS 2 AND 4, REQUIRING A 45 POINT REDUCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s risk assessment by 45 points, without explaining the facts, determined the People did not submit sufficient evidence on two risk factors:

Supreme Court improperly assessed 25 points under risk factor 2 (sexual contact with victim) and 20 points under risk factor 4 (continuing course of sexual misconduct), as the People failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence … that the defendant engaged in sexual contact with the victims or that, under the theory of accessorial liability, he shared the intent of the victims’ clients in engaging in sexual contact … . People v Canady, 2021 NY Slip Op 03618, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

,

KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS FOR DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONES BASED UPON WHERE THE INTERCEPTION WAS TO BE MADE (NEW YORK); THE CELL PHONES NEED NOT BE (AND WERE NOT) LOCATED IN NEW YORK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a two-judge dissent, determined that Kings County Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants for defendant’s cell phones based up where the interception was to be made (New York). The cell phones need not be (and were not) located in New York:

The issue raised on defendant’s appeal is whether a Kings County Supreme Court Justice had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants for defendant’s cell phones, which were not physically present in New York, for the purpose of gathering evidence in an investigation of enterprise corruption and gambling offenses committed in Kings County. To resolve defendant’s jurisdictional challenge, we must decide whether the eavesdropping warrants were “executed” in Kings County within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law § 700.05 (4). We hold that eavesdropping warrants are executed in the geographical jurisdiction where the communications are intentionally intercepted by authorized law enforcement officers within the meaning of CPL article 700. People v Schneider, 2021 NY Slip Op 03486, CtApp 6-3-21

 

,

A FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SEX OFFENDER AND THE VICTIM (HERE DEFENDANT’S YOUNG STEPDAUGHTER) DOES NOT INCREASE THE RISK TO THE PUBLIC AND THEREFORE CANNOT, STANDING ALONE, BE THE BASIS FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mastro, determined the existence of a family relationship between the sex offender and the victim (here the defendant’s young stepdaughter) cannot, standing alone, be the basis for an upward departure from the risk assessment guidelines. The purpose of the risk assessment is to assess the threat posed to the public by a defendant. Abuse of a family member, as opposed to a stranger, does not pose a greater risk to the public:

… [T]he inclusion of familial relationships in … risk factor [7] was … expressly considered—and deliberately rejected—by the Board based on its determination that offenders who victimize family members do not pose the same risk of recidivism or danger to the community as offenders who target strangers. * * *

Inasmuch as the Board has already determined in the Guidelines that a familial relationship between an offender and his or her victim does not warrant the imposition of points on the RAI [risk assessment instrument] because it poses a comparatively lower risk of reoffense and danger to the public, that relationship, without more, likewise will not constitute an appropriate aggravating factor to justify an upward departure to a higher risk level. People v Rodriguez, 2021 NY Slip Op 03475, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE FACED A 45-YEAR SENTENCE AFTER TRIAL WHEN THE ACTUAL SENTENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN CAPPED AT 20 YEARS; DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY WAS NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty pleas, determined defendant’s pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because was told he could be sentenced to 45 years after trial when the sentence would have been capped at 20 years:

Defendant was told that he faced the possibility of serving three 15-year sentences, to run consecutively, if he chose to proceed to trial, when at most he was facing 20 years because of the statutory cap … . Thus, he was weighing a 9-year plea offer against what he was told was a maximum of 45 years’ imprisonment. Because defendant was not told about the capping statute, he did not have a “full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequences” … .

This 25-year disparity between the true legal sentence and the sentence defendant was told he could receive was so significant alone as to render his plea involuntary … . As defendant explained in his affidavit, submitted in support of his CPL 440.10 motion, the prospect of spending 45 years in prison—and dying there—factored into the 42-year-old’s calculation of the relative pros and cons of accepting the plea … . People v Buchanan, 2021 NY Slip Op 03386, First Dept 5-27-21

 

,

NO PROOF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS WITHIN DEFENDANT’S REACH WHEN IT WAS SEIZED AND SEARCHED; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a brief memorandum decision, determined the search of defendant’s backpack could not be justified as a search incident to arrest because there was no evidence the backpack was within defendant’s reach when it was seized and searched:

The People failed to establish that the warrantless search of defendant’s backpack was a valid search incident to arrest … . The record does not contain evidence supporting a determination that the backpack was in defendant’s “immediate control or ‘grabbable area'” … . There is a lack of testimony in the record indicating where the bag was in relation to defendant immediately prior to the search. Because Supreme Court denied defendant’s suppression motion without reaching the People’s alternative argument raised in opposition, we remit the matter to Supreme Court … . People v Mabry, 2021 NY Slip Op 03348, CtApp 5-27-21

 

, ,

THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TPVA) IS A CRIMINAL COURT WHICH CANNOT ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WHEN A DEFENDANT FAILS TO APPEAR FOR A TRAFFIC-INFRACTION TRIAL; IN CONTRAST, A TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TVB) IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, NOT A CRIMINAL COURT, AND MAY ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Bureau (TPVA) is a criminal court which cannot issue a default judgment when a defendant who has pled not guilty does not show up for a traffic-infraction trial. On the other hand, a Traffic Violations Bureau (TVA) is not a criminal court and may issue a default judgment:

Defendants in these cases were prosecuted in district court … . Each defendant timely appeared before the TPVA, pleaded not guilty, and requested a trial. They were each given a document indicating the date and time of the trial with a warning of the repercussions for failure to appear: “THE COURT MAY ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST OR PROCEED IN YOUR ABSENCE AND YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY SENTENCE AND/OR FEES IMPOSED, INCLUDING INCARCERATION, AND other penalties permitted by law.” Despite the warning notice, defendants failed to timely appear on their respective trial dates. No attempt was made by the People to try defendants in absentia. Rather, a judicial hearing officer of the TPVA rendered default judgments against them and imposed fines. …

The issue before us is whether a TPVA judicial hearing officer is authorized under the Vehicle and Traffic Law to render a default judgment against a defendant charged with a traffic infraction who first enters a timely not guilty plea but then fails to appear for trial. We answer that question in the negative. …

Unlike TPVAs, … the TVB is not a criminal court … . It is … an administrative tribunal where, in cities having a population of one million or more, traffic infractions may be disposed of in an administrative hearing held before a hearing officer appointed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles … . In contrast to trials conducted before TPVAs, hearings before the TVB are not governed by the CPL … . People v Iverson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03347, CtApp 5-27-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN A CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE; COUNSEL MADE AN ARGUMENT WHICH WAS EXPRESSLY REJECTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE 2ND DEPARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defense counsel was ineffective the SORA risk-level assessment proceeding:

The defendant was convicted, in federal court, of possession of child pornography … . After a hearing to determine his level of risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act … , at which the defendant was assessed 30 points under risk factor 3 (number of victims), 30 points under risk factor 5 (age of victims), and 20 points under risk factor 7 (victims were strangers), the defendant was designated a level two sex offender. …

A defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel in a SORA proceeding … . Here, the only argument that defense counsel made at the hearing—challenging the assessment of points under risk factors 3 and 7 in light of the nature of the offense—had been soundly rejected by the Court of Appeals … and this Court … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, defense counsel’s failure to apply, instead, for a downward departure on the basis of an overassessment of risk level due to application of points under risk factors 3 and 7 … , demonstrated a misunderstanding of the relevant law and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel … . People v Bertrand, 2021 NY Slip Op 03338, Second Dept 5-25-21

 

,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW THE COMPLAINANT WAS A 14-YEAR-OLD RUNAWAY WHEN SHE STAYED AT HIS HOUSE; THE EVIDENCE OF KIDNAPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s kidnapping conviction, determined the evidence was legally insufficient:

“A person is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree when he or she] abducts another person” … . “‘Abduct’ means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his [or her] liberation by . . . (a) secreting or holding him [or her] in a place where he [or she] is not likely to be found” … . “‘Restrain’ means to restrict a person’s movements intentionally and unlawfully in such [a] manner as to interfere substantially with his [or her] liberty by moving him [or her] from one place to another, or by confining him [or her] either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he [or she] has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful”… . “A person is so moved or confined ‘without consent’ when such is accomplished by . . . any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he [or she] is a child less than sixteen years old . . . and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him [or her] has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement” … .  [T]he evidence does not establish that the defendant had “knowledge that the restriction [of the complainant’s movements was] unlawful” … , as the record fails to establish that the defendant knew that the complainant was under the age of 16 or that he knew she had run away and that her parents were looking for her, during a period of three days to one week that she was staying at his house … . Moreover, the evidence also failed to establish that the defendant intentionally restricted the complainant’s movements by confining her … , or that he intended to prevent her liberation by “secreting or holding [her] in a place where [she was] not likely to be found” … . Without establishing that the defendant knew that the complainant was a 14-year-old runaway, the People failed to establish that the defendant possessed the requisite intent to restrict her movements by confining her, or to prevent her liberation by keeping her hidden from her parents in a place where she was unlikely to be found. People v Legrand, 2021 NY Slip Op 03333, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

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