You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THE EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS ONE OF THE ROBBERS WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT BUT DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the evidence identifying defendant as one of the robbers was legally sufficient but the conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he police officer who spoke with the complainant outside the deli testified that the only description given of the perpetrators was four male Hispanics, one with a bleach-blond beard, and that the complainant never mentioned that one of the perpetrators was wearing a bandana. After speaking with the complainant, the officer, accompanied by the complainant, crossed the street and entered the park where the robbery had occurred. The defendant, who was wearing a black shirt and sitting on a bench approximately 100 feet from where the crime took place, was the only person in the park. The officer walked up to the defendant, who did not flee or offer any resistance, told him to stand, and placed him in handcuffs. Upon searching the defendant, the officer found a bandana depicting the Mexican flag in his pocket. According to the arresting officer, upon seeing the bandana, the complainant told the officer for the first time that one of the perpetrators had been wearing a similar bandana. The complainant’s wallet and its contents were never recovered. * * *

In this single-witness identification case, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable. While the defendant was found in possession of a distinctive-looking bandana in close spatial and temporal proximity to the scene of the robbery, none of the police witnesses testified that the complainant had mentioned the existence of such a bandana prior to the defendant’s arrest. Moreover, the record evidence does not explain why the police would have expected to find one of the suspects in the park, when the complainant himself testified that the four suspects left together after the robbery. We also find it significant that the complainant testified that he had seen the man with the bandana on two occasions prior to the night of the robbery, yet he also testified that he had never seen the defendant before the night of the robbery, and in fact identified one of the codefendants in court as the man with the bandana. People v Garcia, 2021 NY Slip Op 03196, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HE SHOULD BE OFFERED ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AS AN ELEMENT OF HIS SENTENCE; THE ISSUE SURVIVED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether he is eligible for judicial diversion, i.e., alcohol or substance abuse treatment as an element of sentencing:

… “[A]ppellate review of the defendant’s claim that his application for judicial diversion was improperly denied is not foreclosed by his plea of guilty” … .

Pursuant to CPL 216.05(3)(a), upon receipt of a completed alcohol and substance abuse evaluation report … either the People or an “eligible defendant” … , may request a hearing on the issue of whether the eligible defendant should be offered alcohol or substance abuse treatment … .

… [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion without first conducting a hearing pursuant to CPL 216.05(3)(a) on the issue of whether the defendant should be offered alcohol or substance abuse treatment. It is undisputed that the defendant is an “eligible defendant” as defined in CPL 216.00(1), and that an “alcohol and substance abuse evaluation” as defined in CPL 216.00(2) was completed. Based upon the conclusions contained in that evaluation, the court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a hearing on the issue of whether he should be offered alcohol or substance abuse treatment … . People v Commissiong, 2021 NY Slip Op 03193, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

, ,

MANDAMUS PETITION TO COMPEL JUDGES TO ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER DECIDING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO REARGUE HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted the petition to compel judges to issue a written order denying petitioner’s motion to reargue a motion to vacate his conviction:

Under the circumstances of this case, the petitioner demonstrated a clear legal right to a written order determining his motion for leave to reargue his prior motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, in the action entitled People v Cruz … and mandamus properly lies to compel the respondents to issue that written order, as well as an order determining the petitioner’s motion to reargue the “bench decision” … . Matter of Cruz v D’Emic, 2021 NY Slip Op 03175, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

,

THE PEOPLE FAILED TO TIMELY REDUCE THE BOND OBLIGATION TO A JUDGMENT, THEREFORE THE SURETY’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT FORFEITING THE $100,000 BAIL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the surety’s motion to vacate a judgment forfeiting $100,000 bail should have been granted. Although the surety’s (Empire’s) motion was untimely, the People had failed to timely reduce the bond obligation to a judgment. The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here:

In this special proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR 5015 by a surety of a defendant in a criminal case, the dispositive question is whether a surety is procedurally precluded from moving to vacate a judgment of bail forfeiture as untimely made. The People argue that the application is precluded because the surety did not move within the one-year time limit applicable to a motion for remission of the forfeiture, which, as set forth in CPL 540.30(2), “must be made within one year after the forfeiture of bail is declared.” We answer the question in the negative because the People must first comply with the statutory mandate of CPL 540.10(2) before they can raise the one-year statute of limitations of CPL 540.30(2). The People did not comply with CPLR 540.10(2), which requires the People to reduce a bond obligation to a judgment within 120 days after the forfeiture is declared by the court. People v Empire Bonding & Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 03120, First Dept 5-13-21

 

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the superior court information (SCI) was jurisdictionally defective because it did not include an offense charged in the felony complaint or a lesser included offense:

… [D]efendant pleaded guilty, as charged in the SCI, to attempted robbery in the second degree under Penal Law §§ 110.00 and 160.10 (1), a different crime from robbery in the first degree (see Penal Law § 160.15 [2]), which was charged in the felony complaint. To be guilty of the offense charged in the SCI, defendant must have attempted to “forcibly steal[] property” and done so “when . . . aided by another person actually present” (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). However, the crime of robbery in the first degree in the felony complaint charged defendant with “forcibly steal[ing] property” while “he or another participant in the crime . . . [i]s armed with a deadly weapon” (Penal Law § 160.15 [2]). “As charged here, [attempted] robbery in the second degree requires an element not required by robbery in the first degree — namely, that defendant be ‘aided by another person actually present'” … . Thus, inasmuch as it is possible to commit the crime charged in the felony complaint — robbery in the first degree — without committing the crime charged in the SCI — attempted robbery in the second degree — the crime charged in the SCI is not a lesser included offense of the former … .

Given that the SCI here did not contain either an offense charged in the underlying felony complaint or a lesser included offense thereof, the SCI upon which defendant’s plea was based was jurisdictionally defective … . People v McCall, 2021 NY Slip Op 03083, Third Dept 5-13-21

 

,

CRITERIA FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department explained the criteria for an application for risk-level reclassification under SORA:

Turning to the August 2019 order denying defendant’s application for reclassification, it was his burden “to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the requested modification [was] warranted, and the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion” … . County Court correctly rejected defendant’s efforts to relitigate various issues addressed in the 2018 order, as an application for reclassification is not “a vehicle for reviewing whether [a] defendant’s circumstances were properly analyzed in the first instance to arrive at his [or her] risk level” … . The sole new development pointed to by defendant was his evaluation by a psychiatrist after the issuance of the 2018 order, and he provided a letter in which the psychiatrist made preliminary findings that defendant neither met the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia nor merited a risk level three classification. The psychiatrist’s final report was not submitted for review, however, and the limited findings offered in the letter were rendered without a review of the raw data underlying the 2015 report and were based upon an account of defendant’s sexual history and offenses that “markedly differ[ed]” from the one referenced in it. The Board accordingly opposed a modification on the ground that defendant had not met his burden of proof and, under the circumstances presented, County Court did not abuse its discretion in agreeing with that assessment … . People v Stein, 2021 NY Slip Op 03086, Third Dept 5-13-21

 

,

THE POLICE ACTED ILLEGALLY IN DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT’S SUBSEQUENT INDEPENDENT ACT OF RUNNING OVER THE POLICE OFFICER DISSIPATED THE ILLEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS CERTAIN TESTIMONY ABOUT THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE POLICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress testimony about an encounter with police was properly denied. Although the police acted illegally in directing defendant to get out of his car and in trying to physically remove defendant from his car, the subsequent criminal act by the defendant, running over the police officer, dissipated the taint of the illegal police conduct:

“Where, like here, a vehicle is lawfully parked on the street and neither it nor its occupant is under any restraint, and the police have no grounds to suspect the occupant of criminality at that point, requesting the occupant to step out of the vehicle creates a new, unauthorized restraint” … . …

“Under the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule, ‘[t]he question to be resolved when it is claimed that evidence subsequently obtained is ‘tainted’ or is ‘fruit’ of a prior illegality is whether the challenged evidence was [obtained] ‘by exploitation of [the initial] illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint'” … . When determining whether an action taken by a defendant following an impermissible seizure dissipated the taint of the illegality, “[t]he test to be applied is whether defendant’s action . . . was spontaneous and precipitated by the illegality or whether it was a calculated act not provoked by the unlawful police activity and thus attenuated from it” … .

Here, the defendant’s action in running over Officer Manzella’s legs and ankles with the vehicle constituted a calculated, independent criminal act, which broke the chain of events and dissipated the taint of the initial unlawful police conduct … . People v Contreras, 2021 NY Slip Op 03048, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT INCLUDED OFFENSES FOR WHICH DEFENDANT WAS NOT HELD FOR GRAND JURY ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the superior court information (SCI) was jurisdictionally defective because it included offenses for which defendant was not held for grand jury action:

The initial felony complaint charged defendant with two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree, and one count each of assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree. Defendant subsequently agreed to waive prosecution by indictment and plead guilty to one count of aggravated criminal contempt, an offense greater than that charged in the original felony complaint. Because the only offense contained in the superior court information was not an offense for which defendant was held for grand jury action, or a lesser included offense, the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective … .

The fact that the felony complaint was amended to include a charge for aggravated criminal contempt does not require a different result. The superior court information is still defective because it included higher offenses for which defendant was not held for grand jury action (see CPL 195.20). People v Angel, 2021 NY Slip Op 03001, First Dept 5-11-21

 

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE IS AN ARMED FELONY FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES IF THE FIREARM IS LOADED AND OPERABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Centra, diverging from the First Department, determined criminal possession of a weapon second degree can constitute possession of a deadly weapon within the definition of an armed felony if the firearm is loaded and operable:

We disagree with the reasoning in Ochoa [182 AD3d 410, 1st Dept 2020] only to the extent that it held that all convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree for possessing a loaded firearm are not armed felonies. It is apparent that where a defendant possesses a firearm that is actually loaded with ammunition and is capable of being fired, he or she possesses a deadly weapon and is guilty of an armed felony offense. We conclude that it is appropriate to look at the particular facts of each case to determine whether the defendant is guilty of an armed felony. For example, a person is guilty of robbery in the first degree under Penal Law § 160.15 (2) when he or she commits a robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, which, as noted, includes a switchblade knife or a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, may be discharged (§ 10.00 [12]). To determine if the defendant committed an armed felony, courts look to the definition of deadly weapon as that phrase is used in the definition of armed felony, which excludes knives. Thus, where a defendant is convicted of robbery in the first degree for the use of a knife, that is not an “armed felony” … . Where, however, the robbery is committed with a loaded, operable firearm, it is an “armed felony” (see People v Jiminez, 165 AD2d 692, 692-693 [1st Dept 1990] … ). In Jiminez, the Court held that “[s]ince defendant pleaded guilty to committing first degree robbery while armed with a pistol he was properly sentenced as an armed felony offender” … , despite the fact that a first-degree robbery conviction is not always an armed felony. Just as courts look to the definition of deadly weapon as that phrase is used in the definition of armed felony to determine that knives are excluded therefrom, so too should courts look to whether the firearm fits within that definition, i.e., a firearm that is actually loaded and capable of being fired. People v Meridy, 2021 NY Slip Op 02894, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

, ,

THE PROSECUTOR VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW BY REFUSING TO INFORM THE GRAND JURY THE DEFENDANT REQUESTED THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES; HOWEVER THE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF TWO COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT; COUNTY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, in a People’s appeal, determined the district attorney violated the Criminal Procedure Law by refusing to tell the grand jury defendant had requested that two witnesses give testimony, but the violation did not warrant dismissal of two counts of the indictment. The decision includes a detailed discussion of the district attorneys duties and discretion with respect to a defendant’s request for witness testimony before a grand jury:

… [A] prosecutor may not “suppress[ a] defendant’s request to call . . . witness[es] nor strip[ ] the grand jury of its discretion to grant or deny that request” … . Instead, “[a]lthough [a] prosecutor [cannot] avoid presenting [a requested] witness’s name for a vote, the prosecutor [is] free, in the role of advisor to the grand jury, to explain that the witness [does] not have relevant information [or] primarily offer[s] inadmissible hearsay testimony, and if unpersuasive in this effort, the prosecutor [may seek] a court order quashing the subpoena or limiting the witness’s testimony as provided in CPL 190.50 (3)” … . … [T]he court properly determined that the People, despite their stated concerns about the admissibility of the proposed testimony, violated their statutory obligation by refusing to present to the grand jury defendant’s request that two of the vehicle’s other occupants be called as witnesses. * * *

We … conclude that “this was not one of the rare cases of prosecutorial misconduct entitling a defendant to the exceptional remedy of dismissal, because there is no showing that, in the absence of the complained-of misconduct, the grand jury might have decided not to indict the defendant” … . … [T]he People did not engage in an overall pattern of willful and pervasive misconduct; instead, the failure to present defendant’s request for witnesses to the grand jury constituted an isolated instance of misconduct involving, at worst, the erroneous handling of an evidentiary matter, which “do[es] not merit invalidation of the indictment” … . People v Wilcox, 2021 NY Slip Op 02893, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

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