You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE AN ADEQUATE SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should not have been denied without a hearing. The motion alleged defense counsel was ineffective for failing to make an adequate speedy trial motion. The Fourth Department found there was a question of fact about whether 88 days should have been excluded from the speedy trial calculation because the defendant was evading arrest:

… [T]he People contended that the speedy trial motion would have been denied even if properly pleaded because defendant was attempting to avoid apprehension and thus the 88 days preceding the People’s first statement of readiness were excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (c) (i). In denying the CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing, the court concluded that the trial court had ruled that the 88 days between the commencement of the action and the People’s initial statement of readiness “was not chargeable to the People[] because defendant evaded arrest.” We note, however, that the only evidence in the record supporting the conclusion that defendant was evading arrest was the prosecutor’s statement at defendant’s arraignment on the indictment that she understood that defendant had “fled the area” and was heading to the New York City area, an assertion that was based solely on the supposition of an unnamed member of the police department’s central investigation division. We thus conclude that defendant’s submissions “support[] his contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel . . . and raise[] a factual issue that requires a hearing” … and that “[t]he People submitted nothing in opposition to the motion that would require or indeed allow the court to deny the motion without a hearing” … . People v Reed, 2021 NY Slip Op 00758, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the for cause challenges to two jurors should have been granted. Both jurors said they would have difficulty considering each crime separately when the crimes occurred close in time. The judge did not elicit any responses from the two jurors after they expressed their concerns:

… [D]efense counsel questioned each juror as to whether he or she would have trouble separating the proof in the case or understanding that the prosecution had to prove each individual incident beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as whether they could set aside any preconceived notions and consider each incident individually. Two prospective jurors indicated that they were not sure if they could consider each incident separately. Specifically, one prospective juror stated, “I don’t know if I could,” while a second prospective juror stated, “I’m not sure. Like I’m not sure who said it, like the timeframe like if it was one after another, another day, day, day, I don’t know if I can separate it. But if it’s like once, you know, a year or three years later this—maybe I would be able to separate it then.” …

In response, the court explained to the entire panel that defendant “is presumed to be innocent of each and every one of those [allegations], and the fact that there was something on one day, something on another day, you’re going to decide each and every one of those on its own merits.” The court also specifically asked the panel if they understood that they had “to decide each one of the cases on their—each one of the charges on their own merit.” The prospective jurors remained silent.  People v Padilla, 2021 NY Slip Op 00732, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE PLEA WAS VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant was not provided with sufficient information about the direct consequences of his guilty prior to entering the plea:

… Supreme Court failed to inform [defendant] that a fine would be imposed and failed to advise him that, following his indeterminate term of imprisonment, he would be subject to a mandatory three-year period of conditional discharge, during which he would be required to install and maintain an ignition interlock device in his vehicle … . …

“The direct consequences of a plea—those whose omission from a plea colloquy makes the plea per se invalid—are essentially the core components of a defendant’s sentence: a term of probation or imprisonment, a term of postrelease supervision, a fine”… , and the failure to advise a defendant at the time of his or her guilty plea of a direct consequence of that plea “requires that [the] plea be vacated” … . Here, defendant was advised of the fine and mandatory conditional discharge for the first time immediately prior to sentencing, when the prosecutor stated that defendant would be required to pay “all mandatory fines [and] surcharges” and that the period of incarceration “would be followed by a conditional discharge for the ignition interlock to be enforced.” We note that preservation of defendant’s contention was not required under the circumstances of this case inasmuch as “defendant did not have sufficient knowledge of the terms of the plea at the plea allocution and, when later advised, did not have sufficient opportunity to move to withdraw [his] plea” … . People v Tung Nguyen, 2021 NY Slip Op 00724, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

, ,

WHETHER THE HOUSE FIRE WAS DELIBERATELY SET WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE INSURANCE-FRAUD OFFENSES STEMMING FROM OVERSTATING THE VALUE OF DESTROYED ITEMS AND MAKING CLAIMS FOR ITEMS DEFENDANT DID NOT OWN OR POSSESS; THEREFORE THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE ARSON INVESTIGATOR’S TESTIMONY OUTWEIGHED ITS PROBATIVE EFFECT; ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the arson investigator’s testimony the fire had been deliberately set was irrelevant to the insurance-fraud offenses and was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. The defendant was charged with making false insurance claims for objects alleged to be lost in the house fire:

… [T]he investigator’s conclusion was highly prejudicial because it allowed the jury to speculate that defendant burned the house down with all of her possessions inside of it in order to collect the insurance money, which, if true, would be conclusive of her alleged intent to defraud. That prejudice was compounded by the limiting instructions that the court provided to the jury after opening statements. Inasmuch as the court had concluded prior to trial that the evidence in question was relevant and admissible for the purpose of completing the narrative of events, the court appropriately instructed the jury that the evidence would be received only for that limited purpose and, consistent with defendant’s request, also instructed the jury that she had not been charged with arson. However, the court further instructed the jury that, “every time you hear the word arson, . . . you should be thinking about not tying the arson to [defendant].” We conclude that the further instruction, if anything, had the effect of linking defendant to the arson in the minds of the jurors. Moreover, the prejudice to defendant was also compounded by the court’s failure to issue appropriate limiting instructions when the evidence in question was admitted and during the final charge to the jury … . Although defendant failed to preserve any challenge to the content or timing of the limiting instructions … we exercise our power to review in the interest of justice her contentions in those respects … . People v Murray, 021 NY Slip Op 00722, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

,

DEFENDANT AND HIS SON WERE REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY; DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY PLED GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD HIS SON WOULD DO JAIL TIME IF DEFENDANT DID NOT ENTER THE PLEA; BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. Defendant was called to the scene of his son’s (Nicholas’s) arrest for DWI. Defendant was charged with assaulting one of the officer’s at the scene. Both defendant and his son were represented by attorney Ozman. Although defendant maintained he did not assault the officer, but rather was assaulted by the officer as he was frantically trying to find his son, defendant allegedly agreed to plead guilty to attempted assault in order to ensure a good plea deal for his son. Because defendant maintained his innocence in his interview with probation, however, the judge did not abide by the plea agreement and sentenced defendant to incarceration. Prior to sentencing, defendant had hired a new attorney and moved to withdraw his plea:

… [T]he record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant’s plea of guilty was motivated, at least in part, by coercive circumstances. The defendant averred, inter alia, that Ozman urged him to plead guilty despite his protestations of innocence because it was “very likely” that Nicholas would otherwise “face ‘jail time.'” The record also reflects that the favorable terms of Nicholas’ plea offer were conditioned upon the defendant entering a plea of guilty as part of the same plea agreement … . Moreover, the defendant demonstrated a significant possibility of a conflict of interest arising from Ozman’s joint representation of the defendant and Nicholas. The defendant’s maintenance of his innocence was at odds with Ozman obtaining a favorable plea offer for Nicholas as part of the “package deal,” which also required the defendant to enter a plea of guilty … . Thus, the record suggests that the defendant’s plea of guilty was induced by consideration other than his desire to obtain more favorable sentencing for himself, and that the defendant was deprived of representation that was “singlemindedly devoted to his best interests as required by both the Constitution of the United States and the New York State Constitution” … . People v Wentland, 2021 NY Slip Op 00578, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT TOOK THE GUN FROM THE VICTIM AND KILLED THE VICTIM IN SELF DEFENSE; THE DEFENDANT’S BRIEF, TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON AFTER THE SHOOTING DID NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon conviction, over a dissent, determined the temporary possession of the gun did not meet the criteria for criminal possession of a weapon second degree. The gun belonged to the victim. During a struggle with the defendant the gun fell to the ground. Both the defendant and the victim dove for the gun. The defendant retrieved it and shot the victim. The defendant held on to the gun very briefly and then disposed of it. The defendant was acquitted of murder:

As reflected by the fact that the jury acquitted the defendant of the murder charge, based upon the defense of justification, the defendant initially took possession of the gun with a valid legal excuse … , and there is no evidence that the defendant retained the gun beyond opportunities to hand it over to the authorities … . The cases cited by our dissenting colleague are clearly distinguishable, involving situations where a defendant retained possession of a gun until it was found by the police … , retained access to the gun after hiding it in a secure location … , acted furtively when confronted by police with a weapon on his person … , or disposed of the weapon during hot pursuit by the police … .

Indeed, our dissenting colleague acknowledges that turning the gun over to authorities is not an element of temporary and lawful possession … . Here, the defendant retained the gun for a brief period while he looked for his brother, and, not finding him, unloaded the gun and disposed of it in the trash. At trial, when he was asked about his intention, the defendant responded, “[m]y intention this is not my gun. Why hold it.” The evidence indicated that the defendant retained the gun for a sufficient time to dispose of it. The fact that he disposed of the gun without turning it into the authorities did not convert his temporary and lawful possession of the gun into illegal possession … . People v Rose, 2021 NY Slip Op 00577, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

,

A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT RESPOND TO A NOTE FROM THE JURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge committed a mode of proceedings error by not responding to a note from the jury:

… [A] new trial is required based upon the Supreme Court’s failure to comply with CPL 310.30, in accordance with the procedures set forth in People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270, 279). CPL 310.30 “imposes two responsibilities on trial courts upon receipt of a substantive note from a deliberating jury: the court must provide counsel with meaningful notice of the content of the note, and the court must provide a meaningful response to the jury” … . Where a trial court fails to fulfill its responsibility to provide meaningful notice of the content of the note, “a mode of proceedings error occurs, and reversal is . . . required even in the absence of an objection” … .

Here, the jury submitted a note requesting to view a specific portion of surveillance video taken from the victim’s building. The Supreme Court failed to notify the parties regarding the existence of the note, failed to read the contents of the note into the record, and failed to respond to the note. People v Everett, 2021 NY Slip Op 00575, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

THE GRAND LARCENY TOOK PLACE IN NEW JERSEY AND IS NOT A “RESULT OFFENSE;” THEREFORE NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the grand larceny indictment should have been dismissed because New York did not have territorial jurisdiction. The grand larceny took place in New Jersey and is not a “result offense:”

Where New York’s territorial jurisdiction over an offense is in dispute, the People bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction under CPL 20.20 beyond a reasonable doubt … . Here, the People did not dispute the defendant’s claim that none of the elements of the alleged offense occurred in New York, and did not seek to establish, for instance, that the complainant’s bank account was located in New York … . Rather, the People argued only that territorial jurisdiction was properly based on CPL 20.20(2)(a) because grand larceny was a “result offense” and the alleged “result” occurred in New York, and the County Court denied the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge on this narrow ground.

“When a specific consequence, such as the death of the victim in a homicide case, is an element of an offense, the occurrence of such consequence constitutes the ‘result’ of such offense. An offense of which a result is an element is a ‘result offense'” (CPL 20.10[3]). The elements of larceny are (1) intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or herself or to a third person, and (2) the wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of such property … . Contrary to the People’s contention, since no “specific consequence” is an element of grand larceny in the fourth degree, it follows that larceny in the fourth degree is not a “result offense” within the meaning of CPL 20.10(3) … . People v Cousar, 2021 NY Slip Op 00573, Second Dept 4-3-21

 

THE 202O AMENDMENT TO CPL 30.30 WHICH ALLOWS AN APPEAL ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE AFTER A GUILTY PLEA DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, determined the 2020 amendment to Criminal Procedure Law 30.30 which allows an appeal alleging the violation of the speedy trial statute after a guilty plea does not apply retroactively:

At the time of defendant’s plea in November 2017 and his sentencing in April 2018, it was settled law that a guilty plea forfeited a defendant’s right to claim that the trial court erred in denying his or her CPL 30.30 speedy trial motion … . However, CPL 30.30 (6), which was enacted as part of an omnibus budget bill in April 2019 and became effective on January 1, 2020 … , provides that “[a]n order finally denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to [CPL 30.30 (1)] shall be reviewable upon an appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction notwithstanding the fact that such judgment is entered upon a plea of guilty.” * * *

“… [I]t is a bedrock rule of law that, absent an unambiguous statement of legislative intent, statutes that revive time-barred claims if applied retroactively will not be construed to have that effect” … . People v Duggins, 2021 NY Slip Op 00336, Third Dept 1-21-21

 

, ,

THE THREAT MADE BY DEFENDANT WAS PERSONAL IN NATURE AND WAS NOT DIRECTED AT THE CIVILIAN POPULATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERRORISM STATUTE (PENAL LAW 490.20); THE CONVICTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s “terrorism” conviction, determined the evidence was legally insufficient and the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. The defendant threatened to shoot “you guys,” but the threat was personal in nature and was not directed at a “civilian population:”

The evidence of defendant’s “intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” (Penal Law § 490.20[1]) was legally insufficient to support the conviction … . We also find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence in that respect … .

At the end of an altercation, defendant, a Muslim, threatened to shoot “you guys,” referring to several Bangladeshi worshippers at defendant’s mosque. Although there was evidence presented at trial that defendant bore animus toward Bangladeshi people, the threat mentioned no group or population and instead appears to have been based on a personal dispute defendant had with one or more of his fellow worshippers over money or a missing phone. Accordingly, this threat was not directed at a “civilian population” as that term was explained by the Court of Appeals in People v Morales (20 NY3d 240, 247 [2012]). To find that defendant’s act amounted to a terroristic threat would trivialize the definition of terrorism by applying it “loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act” … . People v DeBlasio, 2021 NY Slip Op 00376, First Dept 1-21-21

 

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