You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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

 

,

DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE CASE COULD BE PRESENTED WITHOUT THE COMPLAINANT, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT UNAVAILABLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE A COLLEAGUE WAS IN COURT REPRESENTING DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s speedy trial motion should have been granted. The court noted the issue is the prosecution’s readiness for trial, not whether defense counsel is available:

The court erred, firstly, in excluding 93 days of pre-readiness delay in which the prosecution failed to present its case to the grand jury. “[T]he obligation to obtain a proper accusatory instrument is the prosecutor’s alone” … , making “the period prior to the People’s obtaining an indictment [] chargeable to them, absent the applicability of some exclusion” … . …

… [T]he prosecutor did not and could not establish its inability to proceed with the case since the complainant was not necessary to present its case to the grand jury. The charges against defendant were for leaving the scene of the accident without reporting it. The complainant remembered nothing of the accident, let alone defendant’s actions in its aftermath, professing to this lack of memory on the very day of the accident. …

The court also erred in excluding 83 days of post-readiness delay that was due to the prosecutor’s improper declaration that its readiness was “moot” because lead defense counsel was on trial. While acknowledging that a colleague of defense counsel was present, the court nonetheless erroneously concluded that “the People’s state of readiness is irrelevant where counsel is unavailable,” misconstruing the law as to what constitutes “unavailability.” …

Because a colleague of defense counsel stood up on the case on July 8, 2015, as the court itself acknowledged, defendant was not without representation on the basis that “counsel was unavailable.” People v Alvarez, 2021 NY Slip Op 03286, First Dept 5-25-21

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS INVALID BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE AND THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQURY; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL MISCHIEF AND AUTO STRIPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the waiver of defendant’s right to counsel was invalid and the evidence of criminal mischief and auto stripping was legally insufficient, and the convictions were against the weight of the evidence:

Defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was invalid, because the record “does not sufficiently demonstrate that defendant was aware of his actual sentencing exposure” … . “The critical consideration is defendant’s knowledge at the point in time when he first waived his right to counsel”; the court’s subsequent warnings about sentencing “were incapable of retrospectively ‘curing’ the . . . court’s error” … . Moreover, the court “improperly granted defendant’s request to proceed pro se without first conducting a searching inquiry regarding defendant’s mental capacity to waive counsel” … , in light of his history of mental illness, as well as his statement, in response to the court’s reference to the “tremendous pitfalls of representing yourself,” that “[n]one of that has been explained,” even after the court had warned him of a number of such risks.

Defendant’s conviction of third-degree criminal mischief as to one of the vehicles he damaged (count four), and his conviction of first-degree auto stripping, were unsupported by legally sufficient evidence (a claim we review in the interest of justice), and were also against the weight of the evidence … . The People failed to establish that particular charge of criminal mischief because the evidence did not show that “the reasonable cost of repairing the damaged property” … . Such costs “may not be established by hearsay”… . The People relied on a nonexpert witness who was not the owner of the vehicle and did not pay for the repairs, but testified that he looked at a receipt and that the repair costs were $600 … , and the People do not invoke any exception to the hearsay rule. In the absence of admissible evidence as to the repair costs for that vehicle, the People also failed to establish that the aggregate damage to all the vehicles exceeded $3,000, the minimum value for first-degree auto stripping … . People v Jackson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03288, First Dept 5-25-21

 

, ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE CORRECT STANDARD TO APPLY TO THE CANINE SNIFF OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON WAS REASONABLE SUSPICION, NOT PROBABLE CAUSE; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurrence and a dissent, determined the canine sniff after a traffic stop was justified by reasonable suspicion. The concurrence argued the court could not reach the proper standard for the canine sniff because the motion court did not rule on it. The dissent argued the probable cause standard should apply:

Defendant correctly asserts that the canine’s contact sniff of his person intruded upon his personal privacy as secured under both the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and article 1, § 12 of the NY Constitution … . The question presented is whether the search ran afoul of either constitutional provision and what standard applies to make that assessment — an issue of first impression for this Court.

Considering the context of a vehicle traffic stop and how events unfolded, we conclude that a reasonable suspicion standard should apply, not one of probable cause … . A canine sniff is a minimal intrusion compared to a full-blown search of a person, intended only to detect the possession of narcotics … . Without prompting from [officer] Bracco, the canine twice was “in odor” of its own accord, providing a reasonable and articulable basis for Bracco to suspect that defendant possessed narcotics on his person. Given the necessity for prompt action, it was not unreasonable for Bracco to allow the canine to approach defendant. There was contact between the canine and defendant’s person, but the record suggests that contact was brief and the canine quickly alerted. In these circumstances, we conclude that the search was valid and the suppression motion properly denied. People v Butler, 2021 NY Slip Op 03222, Third Dept 5-20-21

 

,

THE RECORDING AND DISCLOSURE OF INMATE PHONE CALLS DO NOT VIOLATE THE INMATES’ RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reiterated that the recording and disclosure of inmate phone calls do not violate the inmate’s constitutional right to equal protection:

… [O]nce an inmate implicitly consents to the recording of his calls, the inmate retains no reasonable expectation of privacy that would prevent the correctional facility from disclosing the recording. “[W]here detainees are aware that their phone calls are being monitored and recorded all reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of those phone calls is lost, and there is no legitimate reason to think that the recordings, like any other evidence lawfully discovered, would not be admissible” (People v Diaz, 33 NY3d 92, 100 [2019] …). Indeed, at the heart of defendant’s argument is the contradictory proposition that the warrant requirement should be applied to a statement in which he has no privacy interest at all.

The principle stated in Diaz applies to any person, incarcerated or not, who waives his or her privacy interest in a conversation, whether by consenting to have it recorded or otherwise. To this extent, defendant was similarly situated to defendants awaiting trial while at liberty. While defendant was treated disparately from such defendants in that he was required to either consent to recording or go without telephone use, this differential treatment did not run afoul of the equal protection clause. Furthermore, defendant fails to show that the government action at issue burdens a fundamental right … . People v Jennings, 2021 NY Slip Op 03262, First Dept 5-20-21

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