You are here: / Criminal Law

THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHUL OFFENDER STATUS; SENTENCE VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, remitted the matter for a consideration of whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status:

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” … . The Supreme Court was required to determine on the record whether the defendant, whose conviction for robbery in the first degree constituted an armed felony … , was an “eligible youth” … , by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10(3) and, if so, whether he should be afforded youthful offender status … . As the People concede, the record does not demonstrate that the court made that determination. People v Hill, 2021 NY Slip Op 02422, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK, A FORMER ASS’T DA, DISCUSSED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING WITH THE JUDGE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE SENTENCING, SENTENCE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the sentencing judge should have recused himself because his law clerk, a former assistant DA, was not screened from the case:

… [A]fter the verdict was rendered, but prior to sentencing, the trial justice hired as his law clerk a former Queens County Assistant District Attorney who had been involved in the investigation and the early stages of the defendant’s prosecution. “‘[A] law clerk is probably the one participant in the judicial process whose duties and responsibilities are most intimately connected with the judge’s own exercise of the judicial function'” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, due process principles did not require recusal, as there was no indication that the trial justice had a direct, personal, substantial, or pecuniary interest in the case … . However, since the law clerk was not screened from working on this case and, according to the trial justice, actually discussed the sentencing of the defendant with the justice, the justice should have recused himself “‘in a special effort to maintain the appearance of impartiality'” … . People v Hymes, 2021 NY Slip Op 02412, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

, ,

AT THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, DEFENDANT PRESENTED SEVERAL WITNESSES WHO SUPPORTED HIS ALIBI DEFENSE; DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE WITNESSES BUT FAILED TO INVESTIGATE; THERE CAN BE NO STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH A FAILURE; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective of counsel should have granted. Although defendant did not demonstrate “actual innocence,” the defendant presented several witnesses who testified defendant had left the party before the shooting and defendant’s hair was short, not braided, at the time of the shooting. The perpetrator was described as having braids:

Although a defendant claiming ineffective representation “bears the ultimate burden of showing . . . the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s challenged actions” … , “[i]t simply cannot be said that a total failure to investigate the facts of a case, or review pertinent records, constitutes a trial strategy resulting in meaningful representation” … . Here, the failure by the defendant’s trial counsel to contact and interview these witnesses cannot be characterized as a legitimate strategic decision since, without collecting that information, counsel could not make an informed decision as to whether the witnesses’ evidence might be helpful at trial … . The fact that some of these witnesses had criminal records does not excuse trial counsel’s failure to investigate since a witness’s “‘unsavory background[ ]’ does not render his or her ‘testimony incredible as a matter of law,'” particularly since the People regularly rely on witnesses with criminal backgrounds, and did so in this case … . Moreover, even if the witnesses’ criminal records provided a strategic basis for choosing not to present their testimony, it does not provide an excuse for counsel’s failure to investigate them as possible witnesses … . People v Davis, 2021 NY Slip Op 02408, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

,

THE STOP OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE REPORT THAT A SUSPICIOUS CAR WAS FOLLOWING SOMEONE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE CAR AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT FOLLOWING ANYONE WHEN STOPPED; THE PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS TRESPASSING BY DRIVING ON THE PRIVATE ROAD, WHICH WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STOP RELIED UPON BY SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress a gravity knife seized by a police officer after a traffic stop should have been granted. The officer received a report of a “suspicious vehicle following someone” without any description of the vehicle. The officer eventually stopped defendant’s car, which was moving slowly but was not following anyone. After the stop the officer saw the knife inside the car, but did not recognize it as a gravity knife until he picked it up. Supreme Court found the stop justified because defendant was trespassing by driving on a private road. However that theory was not raised at the suppression hearing and no evidence other than an ambiguous sign on an open gate suggested driving on the road would constitute trespassing:

The evidence at the hearing established that at the time Officer Paolillo stopped the defendant’s vehicle on Valley Road, the defendant was not following anyone, and was merely driving slowly down the road. In the initial call to the police, there was no vehicle description provided, and thus Officer Paolillo could not have known if this was the vehicle which had been observed following someone. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the testimony at the hearing did not establish that Valley Road was private property upon which trespass was forbidden. Officer Paolillo did not testify that he suspected the defendant of criminal trespass, or that Valley Road was a private road. When asked who generally uses the road, the officer testified “mainly the residents.” When asked how the traffic conditions were on the road, the officer testified “[v]ery light. Like I said, if anybody is down there, it’s basically they live down there.” The officer described that there were gates on the side of the road, which were open, and a sign which states “North Country Colony, Private Property, No Trespassing.” However, the officer was not asked whether this sign referred to the roadway itself or the residential properties located thereon. The officer provided no testimony which could have allowed the court to conclude that if someone was simply driving on Valley Road, it would be an act of trespass. Additionally, based upon the officer’s testimony, it was clear that Valley Road is not a dead end, but rather it has outlets to other roads.

Since there was nothing observed by Officer Paolillo which could have allowed him to conclude that criminal activity was at hand, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant’s vehicle … . People v Ahmad, 2021 NY Slip Op 02404, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF TWO PRIOR BURGLARIES WAS RELEVANT TO THE DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO BURGLARIZE THE BUILDING IN WHICH HE WAS FOUND BY THE POLICE, THE EXTENSIVE, DETAILED EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR BURGLARIES RENDERED THE EVIDENCE TOO PREJUDICIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s attempted burglary conviction, determined the Molineux evidence of two prior burglaries to demonstrate intent, although admissible in principle, was too extensive and detailed to the extent its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Defendant was seen by a tenant in a private area where the apartment fire escapes could be accessed. When the police arrived defendant told them he used that area to smoke marijuana while waiting for his girlfriend to get off work. The evidence of two prior burglary convictions was introduced to prove the defendant’s intent (to commit burglary):

We find however, that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in allowing the People to introduce such a significant quantum of evidence regarding the two burglaries. The trial court permitted the People to call three witnesses to testify regarding the prior two burglaries: the tenant of the apartment that had been burglarized, the investigating police officer and the building’s owner. … The court allowed the introduction of still photographs of the burglarized apartment and building. The court also allowed the introduction of a surveillance video from the February 2011 incident and allowed the building owner to testify about the video. That video depicts a male individual standing outside of the locked front door of the building. The male is seen kicking the door several times until the door breaks open. The male is then seen entering the building, ascending the stairway toward the roof, and, after apparently finding the door locked, the male is seen coming back downstairs and leaving the building.

The probative value of this extensive evidence of the two prior burglaries went well beyond the issue of defendant’s intent and did not outweigh the prejudicial effect to defendant. The jury could well have imputed propensity as opposed to defendant’s intent. Further, the court’s limiting instructions were insufficient to minimize its prejudicial effect. People v Rodriguez, 2021 NY Slip Op 02367, First Dept 4-20-21

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT WAS AN ACCOMPLICE IN A DRUG SALE AND WAS PART OF A CONSPIRACY TO SELL DRUGS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; MERE PRESENCE IS NOT ENOUGH FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY AND THERE WAS NO PROOF OF AN OVERT ACT RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance, on an accomplice theory, and conspiracy, based on mere presence. Defendant was in the car with Alvarado, who sold heroin to an undercover officer who briefly got into the car, purchased the drugs, and left. The evidence defendant acted as an accomplice and was part of a conspiracy was deemed legally insufficient and against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he evidence reflects that the defendant met Alvarado on April 25, 2015, to accompany Alvarado to the driving school before Alvarado and the undercover officer arranged the meeting, and that Alvarado told the undercover officer prior to the meeting that he had to “do this thing for my license.” Thus, the defendant’s mere presence during the sale, with knowledge of what was transpiring at that time, was insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree … . …

… [T]he evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the defendant entered into an agreement with Alvarado to sell heroin on April 25, 2015, since there was no evidence that the defendant participated in arranging the heroin sale or even had any discussion with Alvarado about selling heroin on that date … . Further, the People failed to present any evidence of an “overt act” connected to any statements made during the wiretapped calls between the defendant and Alvarado. Accordingly, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of conspiracy in the fourth degree beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Moreno, 2021 NY Slip Op 02316, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND CONSPIRACY WERE PROPER, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant was properly given consecutive sentences for criminal sale of a controlled substance and conspiracy:

Penal Law § 70.25(2) provides: “When more than one sentence of imprisonment is imposed on a person for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other, the sentences . . . must run concurrently” … .

“[T]he commission of one offense is a material element of a second for restrictive sentencing purposes if, by comparative examination, the statutory definition of the second crime provides that the first crime is also a necessary component in the legislative classification and definitional sense” … . Conspiracy in the second degree has two elements, (1) an agreement with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of conduct constituting a class A felony … , and (2) “an overt act . . . committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy” … . While criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree is a Class A-II felony … , it is one of many Class A felonies contained in the Penal Law, and conspiracy in the second degree requires only the agreement to engage in conduct constituting a Class A felony, not the commission of such conduct. Furthermore, while “[t]he overt act must be an independent act that tends to carry out the conspiracy, [it] need not necessarily be the object of the crime” … . Thus, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree … is not a material element of conspiracy in the second degree … .

Moreover, the acts underlying the crimes committed by the defendant were separate and distinct … . Crimes are separate when commission of one crime is complete at the time that the intent is formed to commit the second crime, even if the first crime is an element of the second crime … . The fundamental question is not whether the same criminal intent inspired the whole transaction, but whether separate acts have been committed with the requisite criminal intent … . People v Blue, 2021 NY Slip Op 02305, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

, ,

THE ANONYMOUS TIP THAT A MAN WITH A GUN WAS LEAVING A CLUB DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH SUFFICIENT INFORMATION FOR STOPPING AND DETAINING THE DEFENDANT WHO SUBSEQUENTLY RAN, PULLED OUT A HANDGUN AND WAS SHOT BY THE POLICE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s suppression motion, determined the police, action on an anonymous tip, did not have sufficient information to stop and detain the defendant. The defendant ran, pulled out a handgun, and was shot by the police. The defendant moved to suppress the handgun. The Second Department noted that the theories supporting the initial stop of the defendant where not raised or ruled upon below and therefore could not be considered on appeal:

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in finding, in effect, that the police had lawfully stopped the defendant before the defendant fled from the police and removed a gun from his waist. The hearing testimony indicated that the law enforcement officials who were in the sergeant’s vehicle had received a tip that two individuals, one of whom had a gun, were leaving the club. There was no evidence presented at the hearing as to the identity of the individual who provided the tip, no evidence that the informant explained to the police how he or she knew about the gun, no evidence that the informant supplied any basis to believe that he or she had inside information about the defendant, and no evidence that the informant had “‘knowledge of concealed criminal activity'” … . Therefore, the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant and his companion based solely on the tip. People v Benbow, 2021 NY Slip Op 02304, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED A LEVEL TWO RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ADDRESS DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE; REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the level two risk level classification was supported by the evidence, but the matter must be reversed and remitted because County Court did not address defendant’s request for a downward departure:

Defendant … contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure to a risk level one classification. The record discloses that defendant made such request early in the hearing, in the event that the court placed defendant in the risk level two classification, and submitted a psychological treatment summary in support thereof. Although the summary was received into evidence and reviewed by the court, the court did not address defendant’s request but proceeded to consider the substantive risk factors, ultimately concluding that defendant should be placed in the risk level two classification. Significantly, as the record does not contain any findings or conclusions with respect to defendant’s request, we are unable to ascertain the court’s reasoning for implicitly denying it. Consequently, we “reverse and remit so that County Court may ‘determine whether or not to order a departure from the presumptive risk level indicated by the offender’s guidelines factor score’ and to set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required” … . People v Conrad, 2021 NY Slip Op 02194, Third Dept 4-8-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED (1) HE WAS MISADVISED THAT HIS GUILTY PLEA WOULD NOT RESULT IN DEPORTATION AND (2), HAD HE BEEN PROPERLY ADVISED, A DECISION TO GO TO TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIONAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court’s granting of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, determined defendant had demonstrated at the hearing he was misadvised that the contempt charge to which he pled guilty was not a deportable offense and that he would not have pled guilty but for that misadvice:

… [T]he record supported the Supreme Court’s determination that there was a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s misadvice, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in the second degree … . While the defendant did not testify at the hearing, defense counsel and the defendant’s former immigration counsel both testified to his being focused on the immigration consequences of his plea and his determination to plead guilty only after being incorrectly advised that a conviction of criminal contempt in the second degree would not render him deportable … . …

“[A]n evaluation of whether an individual in the defendant’s position could rationally reject a plea offer and proceed to trial must take into account the particular circumstances informing the defendant’s desire to remain in the United States. Those particular circumstances must then be weighed along with other relevant factors, such as the strength of the People’s evidence, the potential sentence, and the effect of prior convictions” … . The evidence elicited at the hearing established that the defendant had resided in the United States since 1988 and had five children, all citizens of the United States, whose care and well-being were priorities for him. Under the circumstances, notwithstanding the apparent strength of the People’s case against the defendant, we cannot say that a decision to face the risks of proceeding to trial, including the exposure to a harsher sentence, would not have been rational. People v Saunders, 2021 NY Slip Op 02181, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

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