You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

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

 

DEFENDANT WAS REMOVED FROM THE COURTROOM WHEN HE DISRUPTED THE PROCEEDINGS AS THE GUILTY VERDICT WAS BEING DELIVERED; DEFENDANT SHOULD FIRST HAVE BEEN WARNED THAT HE WOULD BE REMOVED IF HE CONTINUED TO DISRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the conviction, over a dissent, determined the defendant should not have been removed form the courtroom without first issuing a warning. The defendant was removed after disrupting the court as the verdict was being delivered:

After the jury foreperson announced “guilty” on the final charge (count 4) of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, the clerk proceeded to read back the verdict in order to inquire collectively of the jurors whether such was their verdict (see CPL 310.80). Before the jurors could respond, the defendant disrupted the proceeding by using profanity and declaring his innocence. The trial court immediately directed that the court officers remove the defendant from the courtroom. The defendant repeated his protestation and again the court directed that he be removed from the courtroom. Three more times the defendant either proclaimed his innocence or uttered a one-word profanity, and in each instance the court responded by directing that the defendant be removed from the courtroom. At some point during the foregoing exchanges, the defendant was apparently removed from the courtroom. The clerk read the verdict again, and made the requisite inquiry, to which the jurors responded. The defendant’s counsel thereafter requested that the jury be polled … . The jury was polled and the verdict was entered. …

A criminal defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of trial is encompassed within the confrontation clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions … and the New York Criminal Procedure Law … . The defendant’s outbursts and removal from the courtroom occurred during a material stage of the trial, as the jury had not yet been polled and the verdict had therefore not yet been entered … . However, “[a] defendant’s right to be present during trial is not absolute,” and “[t]he defendant may be removed from the courtroom if, after being warned by the trial court, the disruptive conduct continues” … . People v Antoine, 2020 NY Slip Op 07907, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

ATTEMPTED SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNT MUST BE DISMISSED AS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the attempted second degree murder count must be dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of attempted first degred murder:

… [T]he part of the judgment convicting defendant of attempted murder in the second degree must be reversed and count two of the indictment dismissed because attempted murder in the second degree is an inclusory concurrent count of attempted murder in the first degree … . People v Mcdonald, 2020 NY Slip Op 07825, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

CONSIDERING ALL THE MITIGATING FACTORS, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s assault conviction in the interest of justice and adjudicating defendant a youthful offender, in a full-fledged, comprehensive opinion by Justice Troutman, determined mitigating factors supported youthful offender status. Defendant was attacked by another high school student and didn’t realize the victim, a teacher, had intervened. The defendant injured the teacher’s hand with a knife. The Fourth Department went through all the so-called Cruikshank mitigating factors (People v Cruickshank, 105 AD2d 325, 334 [3d Dept 1985]) and further noted the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion by considering additional factors not mentioned in Cruikshank. All involved, including the prosecutor, the victim and the probation department, had recommended a youthful offender adjudication:

In addition to the Cruickshank factors, the parties raised and the court considered additional matters related to equity and discrimination. We reject defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in considering matters outside the Cruickshank factors. The applicable precedent states that the factors that must be considered “include” those nine factors … , and thus, as a matter of logic, those factors were never meant to be an exhaustive list of considerations. We conclude that matters of equity and discrimination are appropriate for sentencing courts to consider. Although we do not conclude that the court abused its discretion, we urge future courts to consider whether a defendant may be facing discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race or gender and to take an intersectional approach by considering the combined effect of the defendant’s specific characteristics and any bias that may arise therefrom … . Here, the prosecutor employed appropriate and effective restorative justice techniques and advocated for the result he believed just. We note that “prosecutors have ‘special responsibilities . . . to safeguard the integrity of criminal proceedings and fairness in the criminal process’ ” … , and this prosecutor deserves to be commended for discharging those responsibilities here. People v Z.H., 2020 NY Slip Op 07824,, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

WITNESS TAMPERING CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL REVERSED; NO CHARGES WERE PENDING AT THE TIME OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE WITNESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the witness tampering conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the evidence was legally insufficient:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of tampering with a witness in the third degree … , defendant contends that the conviction is based upon legally insufficient evidence. We agree. Although the evidence established that defendant assaulted the victim in violation of an order of protection and a few days later left the victim voicemails threatening her with violence if she pressed charges against him, defendant had not yet been arrested or charged with a crime in connection with the violation of the order of protection at the time he left the voicemails. Thus, at that time, the victim was not “about to be called as a witness in a criminal proceeding” … . People v Diroma, 2020 NY Slip Op 07817, Fourth 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