You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

INFECTING A VICTIM WITH HIV CONSTITUTES “PHYSICAL INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF RISK FACTOR 1 RE: THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT; HOWEVER THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT IN FACT INFECTED THE VICTIM WITH HIV WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a defendant’s infecting a victim with HIV constitutes “physical injury” within the meaning of risk factor 1 re: the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). However the evidence that the victim was in fact infected with HIV by the defendant was not clear and convincing and the related 15 points should not have been assessed:

… [W]e conclude that infection with HIV constitutes a physical injury. …

A defendant’s statements as to his or her medical condition—unsupported by any records or evidence from a medical or health professional—have been rejected … , and there is no reason why the same rule should not apply to the People, who are held to a higher standard of proof. Points may be assessed at a SORA hearing based upon physical injury to the victim, based on “clear and convincing evidence in the record, including medical evaluations” … . However, here, no medical evaluations of the victim were in evidence, and the alleged impairment would not be apparent to a layperson. People v Alay, 2021 NY Slip Op 02551, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

, ,

APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS DEPORTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department dismissed defendant’s appeal because he has been deported. The appeal can be reinstated if defendant returns to the court’s jurisdiction:

In People v Harrison (27 NY3d 281), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its ruling that an intermediate appellate court retains its discretion to dismiss a pending permissive appeal due to a defendant’s involuntary deportation. Here, if this Court were to reverse the order appealed from, the defendant would be required to attend and participate in further proceedings in the Supreme Court, which he can no longer do. Accordingly, we grant the People’s motion and dismiss the appeal, without prejudice to a motion to reinstate the appeal should the defendant return to this Court’s jurisdiction … . People v Lopez, 2021 NY Slip Op 02546, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR AN ON-THE-RECORD DETERMINATION WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; MANDATORY SURCHARGES AND FEES WAIVED WITH PEOPLE’S CONSENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and the imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees, held Supreme Court failed to determine on the record whether defendant was eligible for 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 forego it as part of a plea bargain” … . The Supreme Court was required to determine on the record, with respect to the conviction of attempted assault in the first degree, which constituted an armed felony … , whether the defendant 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 … . …

The defendant was convicted before the enactment of CPL 420.35(2-a), which permits the waiver of surcharges and fees for persons who, like the defendant, were less than 21 years old at the time of the subject crime. However, based on the People’s consent, and pursuant to the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, we waive the surcharge and fees imposed on the defendant at sentencing … . People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 02544, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE; PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE FAILED TO INQUIRE FURTHER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLOCUTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the plea allocution negated the intent-to-sell element of criminal possession of a controlled substance. Preservation of the error for appeal was not required because the judge did not make a sufficient inquiry at the time of the allocution:

As charged here, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree requires “knowingly and unlawfully” possessing “a narcotic drug with intent to sell it” (Penal Law § 220.16[1]). The defendant denied during his plea allocution that he intended to sell the drugs he possessed. This is “that rare case . . . where the defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” … . …

“[W]here a defendant’s factual recitation negates an essential element of the crime pleaded to, the court may not accept the plea without making further inquiry to ensure that defendant understands the nature of the charge and that the plea is intelligently entered” … . When a defendant makes remarks during the plea allocution that cast significant doubt on his guilt concerning an element of the crime, the court has a duty to conduct further inquiry to ensure that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily made … . Where, as here, the court fails in its duty to inquire further, a defendant may raise a claim regarding the validity of the plea even without having moved to withdraw the plea … . People v Gause, 2021 NY Slip Op 02543, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL EXPLAINED HIS STRATEGIES BEHIND WAIVING THE HUNTLEY HEARING AND REFRAINING FROM CONSULTING AND PRESENTING EXPERTS IN THE DEFENDANT’S FIRST DEGREE RAPE TRIAL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that defense counsel, at the hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds, adequately explained the strategic reasons for waiving the Huntley hearing and not consulting experts in this first degree rape case. Defendant was charged with having sex with a woman who was incapable of consent due to intoxication. Defendant was not read his Miranda rights until well into the police interrogation:

In support of his belief that the admission of the statements would be beneficial, counsel explained that defendant had maintained throughout the interview that the victim was an active and willing participant in the sexual encounter and that, if the statements were suppressed, the jury would only hear about the changes that defendant had made to his story when, as expected, he testified at trial and was cross-examined about them … . In contrast, if the entire interview were put into evidence with appropriate redactions, the defense would benefit from having the jury repeatedly hear defendant’s exculpatory version of events and be assured that almost all of his account had remained consistent over time. Counsel further believed that any damage caused by the jury seeing defendant walk back aspects of his story could be ameliorated, reasoning that jurors could be persuaded to sympathize with a “desperate” and “confused” defendant who wavered on a few points after prolonged, increasingly hostile questioning, but remained “adamant that everything that had just happened was consensual and [that the victim] was awake for it.” …

… [A]lthough defendant complains that counsel failed to consult with experts or present their testimony to rebut proof related to the victim’s sexual assault examination, her degree of intoxication and the presence of defendant’s genetic material in her anus, the hearing evidence reflected that counsel “had a strategic reason for [that] failure” … . … A finding that the victim was alert and willing would have … resulted in defendant’s acquittal on all charges, and counsel made the tactical decision to focus on that issue to the exclusion of murkier battles over whether the alleged anal sexual conduct had occurred or whether some of the conclusions drawn by the People’s experts were open to question. Counsel explained that he chose that course because of emotionally charged testimony from the victim, the sexual assault nurse examiner and others, all of whom he realized posed a real danger of inflaming the sympathies of the jury against defendant. As such, counsel viewed it as essential to present a narrowly tailored defense that kept the jury “singl[ed] in on” concrete facts pointing to the victim as an active participant in the sexual encounter. People v Sposito, 2021 NY Slip Op 02441, Third Dept 4-21-21

 

, ,

APPEAL HELD AND MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department held the appeal in abeyance and remitted the matter to give defendant the opportunity to move the vacate his guilty plea on the ground he was not informed of the possibility he would be deported based on his plea:

“A defendant seeking to vacate a plea based on this failure must demonstrate that there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that he or she would not have entered a plea of guilty and would instead have gone to trial had the court warned of the possibility of deportation” … . Here, in the absence of the warning required under People v Peque (22 NY3d at 176), we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea, and thereafter for a report to this Court limited to the Supreme Court’s findings with respect to whether the defendant has moved to vacate his plea of guilty and whether he has established his entitlement to the withdrawal of his plea. Any such motion shall be made by the defendant within 60 days after the date of this decision and order, and, upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation … . We hold the appeal in abeyance pending receipt of the Supreme Court’s report. We express no opinion as to the merits of the defendant’s motion, should he make one … . People v Torres, 2021 NY Slip Op 02424, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

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

 

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