You are here: / Criminal Law
,

EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT ARGUED HE NEVER HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON FOUND IN ANOTHER’S HOUSE, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE “INVOLUNTARY POSSESSION” JURY INSTRUCTION; POSSESSION, EITHER ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE, IS NOT VOLUNTARY IF IT IS FOR SO BRIEF A PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE TERMINATED POSSESSION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined there was a reasonable view of the evidence which supported a jury instruction on voluntary (involuntary) possession of a weapon. In addition to actual and constructive possession, there is the concept of involuntary possession. Both actual and constructive possession can be involuntary if it is so fleeting that the defendant was not able to terminate possession. Defendant argued he was a guest for the night in the house where the weapon was found and did not possess it all, either actually or constructively. The Court of Appeals noted that “involuntary possession” conflicted with “no possession at all,” but the jury still should have been instructed on involuntary possession because there was evidence to support the instruction:

The distinction among constructive, knowing, and voluntary possession that defendant emphasizes is reflected in the Criminal Jury Instructions’ model charge on voluntary possession, which provides that “[p]ossession . . . is voluntary when the possessor was aware of [their] physical possession or control . . . for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate the possession” (CJI2d [NY] Voluntary Possession § 15.00 [2] … . * * *

… [T]he trial court denied the charge here, not because the requested charge lacked evidentiary support, but because the court considered the proposed language more confusing than helpful. … . This determination was in error because the requested charge did not inject confusion into the instructions. Rather, it addressed an entirely different aspect of the charged possessory crime: the temporal requirement of voluntary possession. Indeed, the requested charge would have clarified the law because the charge, as erroneously given, allowed the jury to conclude that if defendant had control over the area where the gun was found—i.e., the bedroom—then he had constructive possession of the gun, regardless of how long he was actually aware of its presence. This is not an accurate statement of the relevant law where, as here, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the possession may not have been voluntary. People v J.L., 2020 NY Slip Op 07663, CtApp 12-17-20

 

,

THE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WAS DEEMED NONCONSENSUAL SOLELY BECAUSE THE VICTIM WAS 14; THE DEFENDANT WAS 27; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO RISK LEVEL ONE; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant was not entitled to a downward risk level departure from level two to level one. The defendant was 27 when he had sexual intercourse with the fourteen-year-old victim. The majority argued the age difference precluded a departure:

The record shows that this 27 year-old defendant engaged in nonconsensual sexual intercourse with the victim, who was 14 years old, the only relevant crime considered by the SORA court regarding his risk level designation. * * *

While courts have recognized that sexual conduct that was nonconsensual solely by virtue of age may result in an over-assessment in risk level designation, those cases did not involve a defendant who was nearly twice as old as the victim, as in this case … . People v Romulus, 2020 NY Slip Op 07512, First Dept 12-15-20

 

, ,

A NUMBER OF GUILTY-PLEA CONVICTIONS REVERSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANTS WERE TOLD THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO APPEAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissent with respect to one case, reversed a number of guilty-plea convictions because the judges told the defendants the waiver was an absolute bar to appeal:

The waivers of the right to appeal were invalid and unenforceable pursuant to our analysis in People v Thomas (34 NY3d 545 [2019]). It is well-settled that “a waiver of the right to appeal is not an absolute bar to the taking of a first-tier direct appeal” … . Nonetheless, in each case, among other infirmities, the rights encompassed by an appeal waiver were mischaracterized during the oral colloquy and in written forms executed by defendants, which indicated the waiver was an absolute bar to direct appeal, failed to signal that any issues survived the waiver and, in the Queens and Orleans Counties cases, advised that the waiver encompassed “collateral relief on certain nonwaivable issues in both state and federal courts” … . Viewing these deficiencies in the context of the record in each case and considering the totality of the circumstances, including in several cases defendants’ significant mental health issues … , we cannot say that “defendants comprehended the nature [and consequences] of the waiver of appellate rights” … . People v Bisono, 2020 NY Slip Op 07484, CtApp 12-15-20

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a downward departure reducing his risk level from two to one. Defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography. The Court of Appeals has warned that over assessment of the risk should be avoided in child pornography cases:

… A preponderance of the evidence established that scoring under factors three and seven overassessed the risk posed by defendant, and that he should receive a downward departure (see Gillotti, 23 NY3d at 863-64). As the transcript of the federal plea proceeding makes clear, the federal prosecutor characterized defendant’s case as being on the very low end of the child pornography possession spectrum and did not contest a nonincarceratory disposition notwithstanding that the federal guidelines recommended a sentence of 33 to 41 months. The federal district court provided a long explanation on the record of why defendant was deserving of a nonincarceratory disposition, including his lifetime of hard work, his dedication to family, the many character letters provided, and the limited time period in which defendant was actually viewing child pornography. The Probation Department also recommended a nonincarceratory disposition in its presentencing report. An independent psychological evaluation of defendant found no cognitive impairment or compulsion that would suggest that defendant was likely to reoffend. In sum, this is the kind of case that Gillotti envisioned warranting a downward departure in order to avoid overassessing risk by rote application of factors three and seven. People v Gonzalez, 2020 NY Slip Op 07468, First Dept 12-10-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS REPEATEDLY WARNED HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO 45 YEARS AFTER TRIAL WHEN, IN FACT, HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE CAPPED AT 20 YEARS; DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS GROUND FOR AN ATTACK ON HIS SENTENCE AND THEREFORE DID NOT NEED TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL BY MOVING TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined defendant’s guilty plea should be vacated because he was under the impression he was avoiding a 45 year sentence when, in fact, he could have been sentenced to a maximum of 20 years. Although defendant did not move to withdraw his plea which is usually required to preserve the issue for appeal, here the defendant had no knowledge of the ground for a motion to withdraw:

… [T]he court repeatedly told defendant that he faced a possible sentence of 45 years, but not that defendant’s sentence would ultimately be reduced to 20 years. …

The Court of Appeals … has carved out an exception to the preservation doctrine, in certain instances. “because of the ‘actual or practical unavailability of either a motion to withdraw the plea’ or a ‘motion to vacate the judgment of conviction,'” reasoning that ” ‘a defendant can hardly be expected to move to withdraw his plea on a ground of which he has no knowledge’ ” … . …

Here, the court’s misinformation had great significance. The court repeatedly warned defendant that he could face 45 years in prison if he proceeded to trial on all three of his open burglary cases, and neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel corrected the record. Moreover, defendant, who had already had a failed allocution, did not plead guilty until just before jury selection was to begin, and after the court had repeatedly warned him that he could face as much as 45 years in jail if he proceeded to trial and was convicted. People of the State of New York v Joseph, 2020 NY Slip Op 07472, First Dept 12-10-20

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED SUPPRESSION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES; THE APPELLATE COURT IS POWERLESS TO REVIEW THAT ISSUE; THE APPELLATE COURT IS ALSO POWERLESS TO REVIEW THE SECOND GROUND FOR SUPPRESSION ARGUED BY THE PEOPLE ON APPEAL BECAUSE THAT SECOND ISSUE WAS RESOLVED BELOW IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; MATTER SENT BACK TO SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE SECOND ISSUE SHOULD THE PEOPLE BE SO ADVISED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined: (1) the motion court should not have decided the suppression motion on a ground not raised by the parties and the appellate court is powerless to review that issue (search valid pursuant to the automobile exception); (2) the other ground for upholding suppression argued by the People on appeal was decided in defendant’s favor and therefore the appellate court cannot review it (search valid as an inventory search). The denial of the suppression motion was reversed and the matter was sent back for review of the inventory search issue should the People be so advised:

The People’s current contention that the search of the defendant’s SUV was proper under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because the police had probable cause to believe that the SUV contained a weapon is improperly raised for the first time on appeal … . … [T]he hearing record reveals … the People were relying solely on the theory that the gun was recovered pursuant to a lawful inventory search after the SUV was removed from the location. This Court “cannot uphold conduct of the police, and thereby affirm a trial court’s denial of suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to such conduct, on a factual theory not argued by the People before the trial court” … . …

As an alternative ground for upholding the suppression ruling, the People argue, as they did in the Supreme Court, that the recovery of the gun was lawful pursuant to a valid inventory search. However, because the Supreme Court decided the inventory search issue in the defendant’s favor, this Court is precluded from reviewing that issue on the defendant’s appeal … . …  Under the circumstances presented here, where we lack statutory authority to review an issue resolved in the appellant’s favor at a suppression hearing, the Court of Appeals has instructed that the required remedy is to “reverse the denial of suppression and remit the case to [the] Supreme Court for further proceedings” with respect to that issue … . People v Tates, 2020 NY Slip Op 07405, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE JUDGE SUGGESTED THE WAIVER WAS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO APPEAL; THE OFFICER WHO APPROACHED DEFENDANT ON THE STREET WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REACHING FOR AN OBJECT IN DEFENDANT’S SWEATSHIRT POCKET; DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT AND DISCARDING OF THE WEAPON WAS NOT INDEPENDENT OF THE OFFICER’S UNJUSTIFIED ACTIONS; THE GUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, finding the waiver of appeal invalid, granted defendant’s suppression motion and dismissed the indictment. The officer who approached defendant saw the shape of something heavy in defendant’s sweatshirt pocket, said “what’s this” and reached for it. At that point defendant ran and discarded a weapon:

When explaining the waiver of the right to appeal, the Supreme Court stated, inter alia, that as a result of the waiver, the defendant was “giving up [his] independent right to appeal [his] case to a higher court,” and that the case “ends here” upon sentencing. These statements incorrectly suggested that the waiver may be an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal … . …

The officer was justified in conducting a common-law inquiry, and the officer was permitted to ask the defendant if he was carrying a weapon … . However, the officer was not justified in attempting to touch the defendant’s sweatshirt pocket as a minimally intrusive self-protective measure, since the defendant did not engage in any conduct justifying such an intrusion … . The defendant’s response of fleeing and discarding the gun was not “an independent act involving a calculated risk attenuated from the underlying [illegal] police conduct” … . People v Soler, 2020 NY Slip Op 07404, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ARE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts:

… [B]ecause the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the charge of criminal possession of firearm are inclusory concurrent counts, the conviction of criminal possession of a firearm, as well as the sentence imposed thereon, must be vacated, and that count of the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Nicoletti, 2020 NY Slip Op 07401, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

,

SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER THE SECOND TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIGHER THAN THE SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER THE FIRST TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s sentence imposed after a second trial, determined the sentence imposed after the first trial should not have been “enhanced:”

“Under the Due Process Clause of the New York State Constitution, a presumption of vindictiveness applies where a defendant successfully appeals an initial conviction, and is re-tried, convicted, and given a greater sentence than that imposed after the initial conviction” … . “[C]riminal defendants should not be penalized for exercising their right to appeal” … .  Where, as here, the defendant is convicted of the same count at a new trial following a successful appeal, the sentencing court may not impose a higher sentence unless its reasons for doing so affirmatively appear on the record, and are “‘based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding'” … . Inasmuch as the prosecutor asserted that the defendant demonstrated no remorse for his crimes, the record reflects only that the defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and exercised his constitutional right to remain silent … . In addition, the ongoing impact of the crime on the complainant does not constitute “identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding” … . Accordingly, the court should not have imposed the higher sentence. People v Diaz, 2020 NY Slip Op 07392, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

,

ALL BUT ONE COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT WAS RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE CHILD-VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE CASE; THE SIMILAR UNCHARGED OFFENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX AS BACKGROUND EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial determined: (1) the duplicitous counts of the indictment should have been dismissed pre-trial, not post-trial; (2) the evidence of similar uncharged offenses under Molineux should not have been admitted as “background evidence.” The defendant was charged with sexual abuse of a child. With the exception of one incident (count 1), the child was not able to pinpoint when the abuse happened. All but count 1 were rendered duplicitous by the grand jury testimony (indicating that more than one offense occurred in the one-month time-frame of the indictment counts). In addition, the similar uncharged allegations were too prejudicial to be allowed under Molineux:

“[U]nder . . . Molineux jurisprudence, we begin with the premise that uncharged crimes are inadmissible and, from there, carve out exceptions” … . The proffered Molineux evidence was not necessary to resolve any ambiguity as to count 1, and thus was beyond the Molineux exception for background information as provided by County Court in its ruling … . If the court had dismissed counts 2 through 13 as duplicitous prior to the People’s presentation of their case-in-chief, that likely would have changed the court’s calculus as to the admission of the victim’s testimony regarding uncharged crimes — including whether to allow testimony regarding the incidents referred to in those dismissed counts, which would no longer be direct evidence of charged crimes. Even if the testimony regarding the uncharged criminal conduct was permissible for a nonpropensity purpose, its prejudicial nature outweighed the minimal probative value that may be attributed to it as to count 1 … . While in some circumstances the undue prejudice resulting from Molineux evidence may be mitigated by a limiting instruction, here such an instruction was only provided once in the final charge to the jury, and not at the time of the victim’s testimony, despite County Court having indicated that those instructions would be provided at the time that such evidence was admitted … . People v Holtslander, 2020 NY Slip Op 07250, Third Dept 12-3-20

 

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