You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE HOME AND THEREFORE COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ARREST WARRANT, THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION BECAUSE THE POLICE ENTERED THE HOME WITH CONSENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL ARGUED THE POLICE DID NOT GET A WARRANT TO DELAY THE ATTACHMENT OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND PROCURE STATEMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers raising a question of first impression, determined the police did not violate the New York Constitution when they entered the home looking for defendant and made a warrantless arrest. The police had probable cause when they went to the home and defense counsel argued they did not get a warrant in order to delay the attachment of the right to counsel and obtain statements. The Second Department determined there was no Payton violation because the motion court credited the police testimony claiming they entered the home with the consent of the person who answered the door:

… [T]he defendant’s appellate counsel specifically contends that where the police, armed with probable cause and ample time to obtain an arrest warrant, nevertheless choose to make a warrantless arrest in the absence of exigent circumstances, their conduct must be deemed to violate the defendant’s indelible right to counsel under the New York State Constitution (see People v Harris, 77 NY2d at 440).

While this issue presents what appears to be an important constitutional question of first impression, we see no viable path to resolving this question in the defendant’s favor within the current framework of New York law. Although the hearing evidence fully supports the defendant’s view that the police went to the subject residence with the intent of making a warrantless arrest—indeed, the People did not present any evidence to suggest any alternative motive for the early morning visit—New York law does not presently recognize a “new category of Payton violations based on subjective police intent” (… People v Harris, 77 NY2d 434). Therefore, we decline to find that the police conduct in this case amounted to a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights under Payton and/or Harris.

Moreover, since the hearing court’s supportable finding of voluntary consent negates the defendant’s Payton claim, we need not consider the defendant’s further contention regarding the causal link between the warrantless arrest and his subsequent statements to the police. People v Cuencas, 2020 NY Slip Op 08118, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

DEFENDANT, AT THE PLEA PROCEEDINGS, WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION TO BE IMPOSED OR THE MAXIMUM WHICH COULD BE IMPOSED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, noted County Court did not specify the period of postrelease supervision which would be imposed, or the maximum which could be imposed at the plea proceedings:

“‘[A] trial court has the constitutional duty to ensure that a defendant, before pleading guilty, has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences'” … . “To meet due process requirements, a defendant ‘must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action'” … , and “[w]ithout such procedures, vacatur of the plea is required” … . It is not enough for a court to generally inform a defendant that a term of postrelease supervision will be imposed as a part of the sentence … . Rather, for a plea of guilty to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the court must inform the defendant of either the specific period of postrelease supervision that will be imposed or, at the least, the maximum potential duration of postrelease supervision that may be imposed … .

Here, at the plea proceeding, the County Court did not specify the period of postrelease supervision to be imposed or, alternatively, the maximum potential duration of postrelease supervision that could be imposed. The court’s failure to so advise the defendant prevented his plea from being knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. People v Cabrera, 2020 NY Slip Op 08074, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

AFTER THE DISCHARGE OF A JUROR FOR MISCONDUCT, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REPLACED THE JUROR WITH AN ALTERNATE WHO HAD BEEN EXCUSED AND SENT HOME; THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the trial court properly replaced a juror for misconduct with an alternate jury who had been excused and sent home:

The plain language of CPL 270.35 (1) states, in relevant part, that

“If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, a juror is unable to continue serving . . . the court must discharge such juror. If an alternate juror or jurors are available for service, the court must order that the discharged juror be replaced by the alternate juror whose name was first drawn and called, provided, however, that if the trial jury has begun its deliberations, the defendant must consent to such replacement.”

Thus, according to the plain language of CPL 270.35 (1), the trial court was required to decide if the alternate was “available for service,” and did not require the consent of defendant given that the jury had not begun its deliberations. People v Murray, 2020 NY Slip Op 08007, First Dept 12-29-30

 

,

DEFENDANT’S CONTEMPT CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION STANDS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF PROTECTION WAS BASED ON AN OFFENSE SINCE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the order of protection based on a conviction for an offense which has been found unconstitutional was voidable, not void, and therefore remained in effect.

Defendant was properly convicted of first-degree criminal contempt under Penal Law § 215.51(b)(v) for violating an order of protection that had been issued upon his conviction of second-degree aggravated harassment under former Penal Law § 240.30(1)(a). The contempt conviction was valid even though the Court of Appeals declared that the aggravated harassment provision underlying the order of protection was unconstitutional in People v Golb (23 NY3d 455 [2014] … . Golb was decided after the order of protection was issued against defendant, but before he violated it. …

The Golb decision did not render defendant’s order of protection void on its face, but merely voidable.

Defendant’s underlying conviction was final before Golb was decided. The order of protection was indisputably valid at the time of its issuance. After Golb, there are no reported cases holding that convictions under former Penal Law § 240.30 (1)(a) are automatically vacated. Instead, where there was vacatur of a conviction or order of protection, it was in response to a request for relief either on appeal or in a posttrial motion … . …

Defendant did not challenge the order of protection by appealing the aggravated harassment conviction against him … . His subsequent CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the conviction and order of protection based on Golb was denied … . Defendant was therefore required to comply with the extant order and his violation constituted criminal contempt … . People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 08011, First Dept 12-29-20

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE TWO INDICTMENTS ALLEGED THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI FOR MEDICAID FRAUD, THE CHARGES INVOLVED DIFFERENT PARTIES AND TIME PERIODS; THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION SEEKING TO PRECLUDE PROSECUTION ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS DENIED OVER A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, denied the writ of prohibition seeking to preclude a second prosecution for Medicaid fraud on double jeopardy grounds. Although the alleged scheme to defraud was the same, the two indictments involved different parties and different time periods:

In essence, the wrongdoing charged in each indictment is the filing of fraudulent Medicaid reimbursement claims and related misconduct, such as payment of kickbacks. However, the indictments charge different specific criminal acts, which were perpetrated on different dates and over different time periods. Moreover, the indictments do not allege fraudulent billing of any of the same managed care organizations. While it appears that the different fraudulent acts charged in the two indictments had a similar modus operandi and were part of a common plan, this alone does not suffice to render them part of the same “criminal transaction” under CPL 40.10(2)(b) … . Matter of Dieffenbacher v Jackson, 2020 NY Slip Op 08015, First Dept 12-29-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, THE JUDGE IMPROPERLY IMPOSED AN ENHANCED SENTENCE AND CHANGED THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea in the interest of justice, determined: (1) defendant was not informed of the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty; (2) the judge improperly enhanced defendant’s sentence; and (3) the judge improperly changed the terms of the plea agreement:

County Court advised defendant that, by pleading guilty, he would be giving up “all of [his] constitutional rights, [his] presumption of innocence, [his] rights to a jury trial, suppression hearings, also all of [his] appellate rights.” There was no mention of defendant’s right to be confronted by witnesses or the privilege against self-incrimination … . Furthermore, the record fails to disclose that the court ascertained whether defendant conferred with his counsel regarding the trial-related rights that were being forfeited upon his guilty plea … . Rather, the court merely asked him whether he had enough time to talk with his counsel about “the facts of [the] drug charges, going to trial, not going to trial[] and things like that” and “[his] jury trial rights, all [his] other rights.” In the absence of any affirmative showing that defendant fully comprehended and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights, the plea must be vacated as invalid … . … “A sentencing court may not impose an enhanced sentence unless it has informed the defendant of specific conditions that the defendant must abide by or risk such enhancement, or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his or her plea before the enhanced sentence is imposed” … . The plea colloquy reflects that, by pleading guilty, the People would recommend that defendant be sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 3½ years … . … [T]he court abruptly sentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms of nine years … and directed that the sentence be served under the supervision of Willard. County Court abused its authority by changing the terms of the plea agreement … . … [T]he court, without any discussion with the parties, unilaterally conditioned defendant’s opportunity to participate in the Willard program on accepting the maximum nine-year sentence. Additionally, the record does not indicate that defendant was given the opportunity to withdraw his plea … . Because defendant was not informed of, or actually understood, the ramifications of the sentencing change nor was provided with the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea, the plea was invalid …”. People v Drayton, 2020 NY Slip Op 07952, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT GIVE TIMELY NOTICE OF ALIBI EVIDENCE, COUNTY COURT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY PRECLUDING THE ALIBI EVIDENCE; THE UNPRESERVED ERROR WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the grand larceny conviction in the interest of justice, determined defendant’s late request to present alibi evidence should have been granted:

County Court abused its discretion by precluding defendant from introducing testimony from defendant’s father at trial. …  The court rested its entire conclusion on the failure to comply with the Criminal Procedure Law and that good cause was not shown, despite the fact that defendant was not given an opportunity to respond to the People’s informal motion to preclude the alibi testimony. Notably, the court did not make any findings that defendant had an improper purpose in providing the late notice nor did it weigh the possibility of prejudice to the People against the right of defendant to present a defense … . Instead, the court, without hearing from defendant, implemented the most “drastic sanction” without considering any lesser sanctions that may have protected the People from potential prejudice … . In making the appropriate inquiry, alibi testimony would have been important to defendant’s defense given that much of the People’s argument was based on accomplice testimony and that the People would not have been prejudiced as they were already aware of the father’s statement. “Therefore, we find that County Court violated defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense” … . People v Lukosavich, 2020 NY Slip Op 07953, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS THE TARGET OF A STING WHERE THE INVESTIGATOR POSED AS THE STEPFATHER OF A 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL WITH WHOM THE DEFENDANT WAS INVITED TO HAVE SEX; WHEN THE INVESTIGATOR SUMMONED THE STEPDAUGHTER TO MEET THE DEFENDANT, HE GOT UP AND WALKED AWAY; THE ATTEMPTED RAPE, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant did not come close enough to committing the sexual offenses suggested by the undercover investigator to meet the criteria for attempted rape, attempted criminal sexual act, and attempted endangering the welfare of a child. The undercover investigator suggested sex with his fictional 14-year-old stepdaughter. When the investigator indicated he was summoning the stepdaughter to meet the defendant, the defendant got up and walked away:

… [W]e cannot conclude that defendant came dangerously near engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact of any iteration with a minor under the age of 15 or any other act that would likely be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child … . Although defendant engaged in conversations contemplating sexual contact with a 14-year-old and drove to a location where he was told a 14-year-old would be, under the circumstances of this case, his conduct did not pass the stage of mere preparation and bring him dangerously close to committing the attempted crimes of rape in the second degree, a criminal sexual act in the second degree or an act endangering the welfare of a child … . Moreover, intent to engage in sexual intercourse and the criminal sexual acts charged in the indictment cannot be inferred from the evidence, particularly given defendant’s passive and noncommittal statements when discussing potential contact with the 14-year-old stepdaughter, as well as the fact that defendant did not bring a condom or any other sexual item to the campsite … . Accordingly, inasmuch as the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, we reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the indictment … . People v Hiedeman, 2020 NY Slip Op 07954, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

,

THE APPELLATE DIVISION REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE, IN PART BECAUSE THE SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE BEEN REACTING TO CRITICISM OF HOW THE TRIAL WAS HANDLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s sentence, over a dissent, determined the sentencing judge reacted to criticism of how the trial was conducted:

The Supreme Court imposed the maximum period of imprisonment of 4½ years’ incarceration …  and 2 years postrelease supervision … , apparently based upon the defendant’s claim during the presentence interview that the judge, the prosecutor, and the jury showed favoritism to the arresting officer, and the defendant did not like how the trial was conducted. At sentencing, when the court asked the defendant to explain that statement, the defendant stated that, although he thought the jury showed “favoritism,” he wanted “to move on from this” and he”learned [his] lesson.” The court, in response, stated that although “[o]bviously this is not the crime of the century,” and “you’re entitled to your opinion,” that opinion demonstrated a “willingness not to accept any responsibility.”

“An intermediate appellate court has broad, plenary power to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances” … . Contrary to the conclusion of our dissenting colleague, that power “may be exercised, if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentence court” … , especially where, as here, the sentencing court acted, at least in part, out of umbrage to criticism as to how the trial was conducted. In this case, considering the nonviolent nature of the crime involving a relatively small amount of drugs in the defendant’s possession, the defendant’s reported substance abuse issues, and the fact that the defendant is married and has a young child, the sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein … . People v Morales, 2020 NY Slip Op 07919, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

,

EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY INSUFFICIENT, ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the assault second conviction, determined the evidence of “serious physical injury” was insufficient:

​The Legislature has defined the term “[s]erious physical injury” to mean “physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” … .

Here … the evidence at the trial failed to demonstrate that the complainant suffered the protracted impairment of the function of a bodily organ as a result of the attack charged in count 2 of the indictment. This prong of the statute, by the plain language of the word “protracted,” requires evidence that the effects of the physical injury were experienced over an “extended” period of time … .  The People fail to cite to any evidence in this case, medical or otherwise, to show that the injury to the complainant resulted in any “protracted impairment” in the functioning of any of the complainant’s organs … . People v Clark, 2020 NY Slip Op 07911, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

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