You are here: / Criminal Law

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

 

,

THE DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY BUT DID NOT NOTIFY THE ATTORNEY OF THE LINEUP; THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the detective who conducted a line-up identification with the defendant was aware defendant was represented by an attorney, but did not notify the attorney of the line-up. The identification evidence should have been suppressed:

As a general rule, a defendant does not have the right to counsel at a preaccusatory, investigatory lineup … . However, there are two exceptions. The first is when a defendant is actually represented by an attorney in the matter under investigation and the police know, or can be charged with knowledge of, that representation … . The second is when a defendant who is already in custody and represented by an attorney in an unrelated case invokes the right by requesting his or her attorney … . In either case, “[o]nce the right to counsel has been triggered, the police may not proceed with the lineup without at least apprising the defendant’s lawyer of the situation and affording the lawyer a reasonable opportunity to appear. A specific request that the lineup not proceed until counsel is so notified need not be made” … .

Here, prior to the lineup, the attorney representing the defendant on another matter spoke to the arresting officer and identified herself as the defendant’s attorney. The detective who conducted the lineup testified at the suppression hearing that he was aware prior to conducting the lineup that the defendant was represented by an attorney. Moreover, the only reasonable inference from the detective’s testimony was that he was aware that the defendant was represented by the attorney with respect to the robbery case under investigation. People v Marion, 2021 NY Slip Op 02177, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

,

DEFENDANT ALLEGED A PROSECUTOR WHO PARTICIPATED IN HIS PROSECUTION HAD REPRESENTED AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE SAME CRIME; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction. The defendant alleged a prosecutor, Vecchione, participated in his prosecution after having represented a codefendant, Bobb, in the same matter:

A prosecutor’s “paramount obligation is to the public” … , and “a defendant, as an integral member of the body politic, is entitled to a full measure of fairness” from that public officer … . Here, the defendant asserts, among other things, that Vecchione was in a position to use privileged information learned through prior representation of the defendant’s accomplice in the crime charged, thus giving the People an unfair advantage in the defendant’s case … . Generally, a public prosecutor should not be removed from prosecuting a case “unless necessary to protect a defendant from ‘actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence'” … . “[T]he appearance of impropriety, standing alone, might not be grounds for disqualification” … .

Under the particular circumstances of this case, in which evidence was presented suggesting that Vecchione was directly involved in the defendant’s prosecution after having represented his accomplice in the charged crime … , questions of fact existed as to whether the defendant suffered “actual prejudice or a substantial risk of an abused confidence” so as to warrant vacatur of his conviction … . People v Breedan, 2021 NY Slip Op 02173, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

,

ARGUING FOR LENIENCY IN SENTENCING DOES NOT PRESERVE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SENTENCING WAS VINDICTIVE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined the argument that the sentence to imprisonment was vindictive was not preserved. Defendant had successfully appealed his conviction after a nonjury verdict and then pled guilty to a different offense before a different judge. Although defendant argued for leniency, that did not preserve the “vindictive sentencing” argument:

The claim that the sentence imposed upon defendant’s guilty plea was presumptively vindictive and imposed without State Due Process protections … is unpreserved. Defendant’s arguments against imposition of the term of imprisonment, registered before the court imposed sentence, were consistent with arguments for leniency and made no specific reference to the principle of vindictiveness or any potential constitutional violation. Defendant also failed to either object to the sentence actually imposed or move to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor does this record support a claim that the sentence, which was within the ambit of the range of sentences for a class A misdemeanor, was illegal in a respect that “can readily be discerned from the . . . record” … . As a result, defendant’s arguments are unreviewable. People v Olds, 2021 NY Slip Op 02019, CtApp 4-1-21

 

THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT REPROSECUTION BY A SIMPLIFIED TRAFFIC INFORMATION AFTER THE ORIGINAL IS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SUPPORTING DEPOSITION; THE CONTRARY RULE IN THE APPELLATE TERM FOR THE NINTH AND TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the Appellate Term’s prohibiting the filing of a new simplified traffic information after the original was dismissed for failure to provide a supporting deposition was not supported by the Criminal Procedure Law and conflicted with a prior Court of Appeals decision:

The Appellate Term for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts has adopted a rule of criminal procedure under which, absent special circumstances, the People cannot reprosecute a defendant by filing a new simplified traffic information after the original simplified traffic information was dismissed for facial insufficiency under CPL 100.40 (2) for failure to provide a requested supporting deposition in a timely manner. Because that rule has no basis in the Criminal Procedure Law and contravenes our holding in People v Nuccio (78 NY2d 102 [1991]), we reverse. * * *

… [A]lthough the Criminal Procedure Law requires a prosecutor to seek permission from the court to resubmit evidence and charges to a grand jury after dismissal of a defective or legally insufficient indictment, there is no similar statutory requirement for filing a new accusatory instrument after dismissal of a facially insufficient simplified information. In Nuccio, we concluded that “the different treatment accorded indictments and informations in the statute manifests the Legislature’s intention to permit reprosecution for nonfelony charges when the information is dismissed for legal insufficiency” (Nuccio, 78 NY2d at 105). …

The Criminal Procedure Law does not prohibit reprosecution upon a facially sufficient accusatory instrument after such a dismissal, whether by information or by simplified traffic information with a supporting deposition. Accordingly, the People were entitled to reprosecute the traffic violation after dismissal of the first simplified traffic information. People v Epakchi, 2021 NY Slip Op 02018, CtApp 4-1-21

 

,

SENTENCES FOR THE SALE OF TWO DRUGS IN THE SAME TRANSACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the sentences for two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance should run concurrently because they were committed during a single transaction:

… [T]he People failed to prove that defendant committed two separate and distinct acts. Counts 1 and 2 were for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree — one for each drug; thus, the actus reus elements are the same … . The record reveals that the CI made arrangements for one sale to take place and defendant engaged in a single transaction — one sale of two controlled substances. The sale occurred in defendant’s vehicle where there was an exchange of money for one bag of drugs, containing two smaller bags of drugs. As the offenses were committed through one single distinct act, the sentences imposed on counts 1 and 2 should run concurrently … . People v Muniz, 2021 NY Slip Op 02023, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

, ,

WARREN COUNTY DID NOT HAVE “PARTICULAR EFFECT” JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL OFFENSES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN SARATOGA COUNTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Article 78 prohibition petition was the appropriate vehicle for raising the issue whether Warren County had jurisdiction over offenses alleged to have been committed in Saratoga County. The Third Department held the charges could not be brought in Warren County under the so-called “particular effect” rationale (i.e., the argument that the offenses had a “particular effect” on Warren County). The petitioner, who resided in Warren County, was charged with grand larceny and other offenses alleged to have been committed when petitioner was treasurer of Lake George EMS involving bank accounts in Saratoga County:

Respondent failed to demonstrate that the evidence before the grand jury established that Warren County has particular effect jurisdiction over the instant crimes. Respondent submitted his paraphrased testimony of one witness, whose familiarity with Lake George EMS and/or source of information was not disclosed. According to respondent, the witness testified that petitioner stole money from Lake George EMS at a time when he knew the organization was having difficulty meeting payroll. Based on this testimony, respondent argued that petitioner’s conduct “was likely to create a situation where emergency medical services would be restricted or discontinued by the Lake George [EMS] thus having a materially harmful impact upon the community welfare.” In our view, such testimony fails to demonstrate a concrete and identifiable injury to the Warren County community. Matter of Gentner v Hall, 2021 NY Slip Op 02028, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

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