You are here: / Criminal Law

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED; NO MENTION OF THE WAIVER WAS MADE UNTIL AFTER THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE RIGHTS AT STAKE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the waiver of appeal was invalid because it was first mentioned after the guilty plea and the explanation of the purportedly waived appellate rights was insufficient:

… [T]he appeal waiver was not mentioned by the Supreme Court prior to the defendant’s plea of guilty, but only afterward. Accordingly, “the defendant received no material benefit from his appeal waiver, as the court had already accepted the defendant’s plea and made its sentence promise” … . Under such circumstances and in the absence of a request by the People, “the court’s insistence upon the execution of an appeal waiver was a gratuitous, after-the-fact additional demand asserted after the bargain had already been struck” … . In addition, the court’s colloquy on this issue, conducted after the plea had already been accepted, “mischaracterized the appellate rights waived as encompassing an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal” … . Contrary to the People’s contention, “these defects were not cured by the terms of the standard written appeal waiver form, which not only lacked detail and repeated many of the mischaracterizations contained in the court’s colloquy, but further misstated that the defendant was giving up the right to all postconviction relief separate from the direct appeal” … . People v Eduardo S., 2020 NY Slip Op 04873, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

,

THE APPELLATE COURT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, REFUSED TO LOWER DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE BY ONE DAY TO AVOID DEPORTATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s one-year sentence for assault, which had already been served at the time of the appeal, should not be reduced by one-day to avoid the immigration consequences of the one-year sentence (deportation):

On this record, even taking into specific consideration the potential immigration consequences of the jury’s verdict and the court’s sentence thereon, and recognizing that the trial judge has the best first-hand knowledge of the case and of the defendant, it cannot be said that the definite term of imprisonment of one year was unduly was harsh or excessive, or that any reduction of one day is warranted to further the interest of justice. …

We have rejected requests for one-day sentence reductions in cases with immigration consequences where the defendants used physical force or violence in the commission of their crimes against others … . …

Here, the defendant’s conduct involved violence against two assault victims, so that a one-day sentence reduction would be an outlier measured against our existing precedents. In any event, to reduce the defendant’s sentence by one day for the purpose of circumventing the normal application of U.S. immigration laws and procedures, in an appeal involving a) physical violence, b) against duly authorized peace officers, c) working in the line of duty, d) causing permanent physical injury to one of the officers, e) and inconsistent with this Court’s prior precedents, builds a bridge that is too far for us to traverse. People v Janvier, 2020 NY Slip Op 04861, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

,

THE SENTENCES FOR ASSAULT AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONSECUTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the evidence did not support consecutive sentences for assault second and criminal possession of a weapon second:

… [T]he sentence imposed on the conviction of assault in the second degree should not run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the conviction of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. There were no facts adduced at the defendant’s plea allocution to establish that the defendant attempted to possess ” a loaded firearm before forming the intent to cause a crime with that weapon'” … . People v Goodman, 2020 NY Slip Op 04857, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

THE FEDERAL FELONY DID NOT QUALIFY AS A NEW YORK PREDICATE FELONY, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second felony offender because the federal conviction did not qualify as the equivalent of the New York felony:

… [T]he defendant was improperly adjudicated a second felony offender on the basis of a prior federal conviction for possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number (see 18 USC § 922[k]). “An out-of-state felony conviction qualifies as a predicate felony under Penal Law § 70.06 only if it is for a crime whose elements are equivalent to those of a felony in New York” … . Here, the defendant’s predicate crime does not require as one of its elements that the firearm be operable (see 18 USC § 922[k] … ) and, thus, does not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing … . People v Dyce, 2020 NY Slip Op 04853, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

, ,

ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE IT WAS REQUIRED TO VACATE THE CONVICTION; DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE REJECTED A PLEA OFFER WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE COULD BE SUBJECT TO LIFE IN PRISON AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER AFTER TRIAL; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REINSTATED THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE AFTER FINDING DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, once the motion court found defendant’s counsel ineffective for failing to inform defendant he risked being sentenced to life in prison as a persistent felony offender after trial, the motion court could not leave the convictions in place and reinstate the original sentence. Defendant had been offered a plea offer with a sentence of 4 1/2 to 9 years which he rejected and moved to vacate the guilty plea pursuant to CPL 440.10:

CPL 440.10(4) provides that “[i]f the court grants [a defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440], it must, except as provided in subdivision five or six of this section, vacate the judgment, and must dismiss the accusatory instrument, or order a new trial, or take such other action as is appropriate in the circumstances” (emphasis added). Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plain language of CPL 440.10(4) requires that, upon a finding that a defendant’s CPL 440 motion is meritorious, a court must, in the first instance (absent the exceptions in subdivisions five or six of CPL 440.10 which are not relevant here), vacate the judgment … , and upon so doing, must then select one of three options: (1) “dismiss the accusatory instrument,” (2) “order a new trial,” or (3) “take such other action as is appropriate in the circumstances” (CPL 440.10[4]). Since the court found that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, it should have granted the defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion by vacating the judgment of conviction … . People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 04849, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

,

AN INDICATION THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE HAD BEEN IMPOUNDED, REVEALED WHEN THE TROOPER RAN THE PLATES, DID NOT SUPPORT THE TRAFFIC STOP; THE WEAPON AND DRUGS FOUND IN THE VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a concurring opinion and an extensive dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the state trooper did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to support the traffic stop. The weapon and drugs found in a search of defendant’s (Mr. Hinshaw’s) car should have been suppressed. The stop was based entirely on an indication the car had been impounded revealed when the officer ran the plates. The notice explicitly stated it “should not be treated as a stolen vehicle hit:”

The trooper here did not observe any violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and “everything looked good.” Putting aside the result of the license plate inquiry, “[t]he trooper candidly testified that he had had no reason to stop defendant” … . …

The result of the license plate check provided neither probable cause to conclude a traffic infraction had occurred nor any basis for an objectively reasonable belief that criminal behavior had occurred or was afoot. Although the People and our dissenting colleague argue that the trooper understood the “generic” impound notification to require further investigation as to its cause, the trooper’s speculation that the car could have been impounded for “registration . . . problems,” the “plates could have been suspended,” “insurance could have been suspended,” or the vehicle could have been stolen was just that — pure speculation … . * * *

Because “there was not even a suggestion that the conduct of the defendant or his companions had been furtive in character before the police interfered with their car’s progress,” and “the record here is bare of any objective evidence of criminal activity as of the time of the stop” … , the stop of Mr. Hinshaw’s vehicle was invalid. People v Hinshaw, 2020 NY Slip Op 04816, CtApp 9-1-20

 

,

DEFENDANT’S PHYSICAL CONDITION AFTER A STROKE WARRANTED A DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF HIS SORA RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO TWO (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s application for a downward modification of his SORA risk level should have been granted:

… [T]he defendant established, by a preponderance of the evidence … , facts warranting a downward modification of his existing risk level classification to risk level two … . The medical evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the defendant, who uses a wheelchair, suffered from a stroke in 2009, resulting in permanent paralysis on the right side of his body. A treating physician testified, inter alia, that there is no possibility of improvement of the paralysis condition. He also testified that although the defendant is able to transfer himself from a bed to a wheelchair, he requires assistance in propelling the wheelchair and in transferring himself to a shower stall. In addition, he is unable to stand for any length of time. Furthermore, the record indicates that the defendant had no disciplinary infractions in prison, spanning a lengthy period of time preceding the hearing. People v Sanchez, 2020 NY Slip Op 04796, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

,

TRIAL COURT MAY NOT SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 ON A GROUND WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL AS A MATTER OF LAW–HERE THE ALLEGED FACTUAL INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE CONVICTION OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD AND THE ACQUITTALS ON ALL THE OTHER SEXUAL-OFFENSE COUNTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court on the People’s appeal, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined the verdict should not have been set aside based upon an alleged inconsistency between the conviction on one count and the acquittals on all other counts:

This appeal by the People and cross appeal by the defendant presents a rare opportunity to consider the circumstances under which a trial court, in reviewing the record on a motion pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) to determine whether a conviction on one count is supported by legally sufficient evidence, may consider a jury’s factually inconsistent acquittal on another count.

The defendant was charged with two counts of rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25[2]), three counts of criminal sexual act in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.40[2]), and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10[1]). * * *

The jury returned a verdict of guilty on count six [endangering the welfare of a child] and acquitted the defendant of all other charges. * * *

… [T]he defendant contends that a factual inconsistency in the verdict may … , under appropriate circumstances, provide grounds for a reviewing court to “consider a jury’s acquittal on one count in reviewing the record to determine if a factually inconsistent conviction on another count is supported by legally sufficient evidence” … .  …  [T]here is some support in the case law for the defendant’s contention—at least within the context of a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, where this Court has both a unique power of factual review … as well as the discretionary authority, in the interest of justice, to reach unpreserved errors that deprived the defendant of a fair trial … . However, we now explicitly hold that a trial court determining a motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 lacks the power to overturn a verdict on this ground where, as here, the contention does not present an issue that “would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court” (CPL 330.30[1] …). People v Taylor, 2020 NY Slip Op 04790, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

,

PROOF AT DARDEN HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PURPORTED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT EXISTED AND PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the Darden hearing did not support the finding that the purported confidential informant existed and provided sufficient information for the issuance of the search warrant:

The Darden rule is necessary to insure “that the confidential informant both exists and gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause, while protecting the informant’s identity” … . The rule, which “gives clear guidance to lower courts and guarantees that the protections of the Fourth Amendment have not been circumvented” … , “is necessary to properly test the officer’s credibility” … , and is “designed to protect against the contingency, of legitimate concern to a defendant, that the informer might have been wholly imaginary and the communication from him [or her] entirely fabricated” … . …

Here, the Supreme Court’s credibility determinations are not supported by the record. As will be shown, there were substantial material discrepancies between the detective’s affidavit in support of the search warrant, and the testimonies of the alleged CI and the detective at the Darden hearing pertaining to (1) the CI’s track record of reliability, (2) the prior relationship between the detective and the CI, and (3) the facts and circumstances of the alleged controlled buy or buys at the subject apartment. Consequently, we find that the People failed to meet their burden at the Darden hearing. People v Nettles, 2020 NY Slip Op 04776, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

CONVICTION OF A LESSER INCLUDED COUNT OF PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT (I.E. COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT AGAINST A CHILD) VACATED (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department vacated defendant’s conviction of a lesser included count:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of predatory sexual assault against a child under Penal Law § 130.96 requires dismissal of the lesser included count of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree under Penal Law § 130.75(1)(a) … . People v Mendez-Huales, 2020 NY Slip Op 04774, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

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