You are here: / Criminal Law
,

WAIVER OF APPEAL OF THE UNDERLYING PLEA DOES NOT PROHIBIT APPEAL OF THE SENTENCE FOR A SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF PROBATION; NO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; APPELLATE COURT HAS POWER TO MODIFY A LEGAL SENTENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s sentence, noted that a waiver of appeal at the underlying plea proceeding did not prohibit the appeal of the severity of the sentence for a subsequent violation of probation. The court further noted there is no preservation requirement for the appeal of an excessive sentence:

… [E]ven if defendant executed a valid waiver of the right to appeal at the underlying plea proceeding, it would not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed following his violation of probation … . Contrary to the People’s contention, defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence is not subject to a preservation requirement … . “A claim that a sentence is excessive is, by definition … , addressed to this Court’s interest of justice jurisdiction, and does not need to be preserved as a question of law … . Contrary to the People’s further contention, in reviewing that challenge, “it is inappropriate for this Court to address whether the sentencing court abused its discretion” … . Rather, this Court “has broad, plenary power to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances, even though the sentence may be within the permissible statutory range,” and such “sentence-review power may be exercised, if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentencing court” … . We agree with defendant that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe under the circumstances of this case, and we therefore modify the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice to a determinate term of imprisonment of five years … . People v Kibler, 2020 NY Slip Op 05365, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

,

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE STRANGULATION COUNT DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITION OF THE “STUPOR” ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court on a People’s appeal and reinstating the strangulation count, determined the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to charge strangulation. County Court had reduced the charge to criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation. County Court ruled the People had not presented evidence sufficient to support the theory the strangulation caused “stupor” citing the People’s failure to define the term:

In order to sustain the charge of strangulation in the second degree against defendant, the People were required to present to the grand jury legally sufficient evidence of the following three elements: (1) that defendant applied pressure on the throat or neck of the alleged victim; (2) that defendant did so with the intent to impede the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of the alleged victim; and (3) that defendant thereby caused stupor, loss of consciousness for any period of time, or any other physical injury or impairment to the alleged victim … .

… [T]he prosecutor’s instructions to the grand jury comported with the statute and mirrored the pattern criminal jury instructions … , and we conclude that the failure of the prosecutor to offer a definition of the term “stupor” did not impair the integrity of the grand jury proceedings or potentially prejudice defendant … .

… [T]he alleged victim testified before the grand jury that defendant “put both of his hands around [her] neck and choked [her] until [she] could barely breathe anymore” and “was starting to lose consciousness.” She was “pushed up against the wall and the door” and felt “[v]ery light-headed and kind of like—like there was a buzzing in [her] head and everything was starting to turn purple in [her] vision before—by the time [the alleged victim] got him to let go.”  People v Ruvalcaba, 2020 NY Slip Op 05354, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

,

ANONYMOUS 911 CALL JUSTIFIED TRAFFIC STOP; DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined an anonymous 911 call provided reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop, officer safety warranted handcuffing the defendant and seeing a rifle in the car provided probable cause for arrest. The dissent argued the anonymous 911 call did not justify the traffic stop:

… “[P]olice stops of automobiles in New York State are legal ‘when there exists at least a reasonable suspicion that the driver or occupants of the vehicle have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime’ ” … . The evidence at the suppression hearing established that police officers were dispatched based on a 911 call reporting a group of people at a specific location, one of whom had been observed getting into a van while possessing “a long gun.” The dispatch provided the license plate number of a van in which the group had driven away from the location where they had been seen by the 911 caller. One or two minutes after the dispatch, one of the responding officers located the van in the area. The officer confirmed that the van’s license plate number matched the one provided in the dispatch, and he initiated a traffic stop. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, “the totality of the information known to the police at the time of the stop of [the van] ‘supported a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity . . . [, i.e.,] that quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious [person] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand’ ” … . In particular, we conclude that the 911 call as relayed in the dispatch “contained sufficient information about defendant[‘s] unlawful possession of a weapon to create reasonable suspicion” justifying the stop of the van … . People v Walls, 2020 NY Slip Op 05337, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE ORIGINAL PLEA AND SENTENCING, HE WAS SO INFORMED AT RESENTENCING; DEFENDANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT RESENTENCING TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND THE SENTENCING JUDGE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT, SUA SPONTE, OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS RESENTENCE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside his resentence was properly denied. Defendant was not informed of the period of post-release supervision (PRS) at the time of the original plea and the original sentence, but was so informed at the resentence:

In 2002, defendant pleaded guilty without being informed of the mandatory postrelease supervision (PRS) component of the promised sentence … , and was sentenced in a proceeding in which the court also did not pronounce that component of the sentence … . Seven years later, he was returned to court with his attorney for further proceedings. Defense counsel advised the court that he had spoken to his client who was prepared to accept the amended sentence. The court explained that five years of PRS would be imposed. Defense counsel responded that that was fine. The court then resentenced defendant to a term that included the mandatory PRS period … .

… Defendant was not denied a meaningful opportunity, at resentencing, to seek to withdraw his plea based on the plea court’s failure to inform him that his sentence was required to include PRS. Generally, a defendant is entitled to an opportunity to withdraw a plea where a sentence exceeds the original promise. However, we find no support for defendant’s argument that this places a sua sponte obligation on the court to inform a counseled defendant of the right to move for plea withdrawal … . People v Perez, 2020 NY Slip Op 05297, First Dept 10-1-20

 

, ,

SOME RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY COUNTY COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined some restrictions on making discovery available to the defense should have been imposed:

Applying the factors set forth in CPL 245.70(4), including the concerns for witness safety and protection, I conclude that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the People’s request in its entirety. Under the particular facts and circumstances of this case … the County Court should have directed disclosure of the audio and video recordings of the narcotics sales be made available forthwith to defense counsel only, to be viewed at the prosecutor’s office. Additionally, the County Court should have delayed disclosure of the names, addresses, and contact information of the confidential informant and undercover personnel until the commencement of the trial. People v Zayas, 2020 NY Slip Op 05236, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS 1999 MURDER CONVICTION BASED UPON THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER BRADY MATERIAL PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his 1999 murder conviction based upon the prosecution’s failure to turn over Brady material regarding a prosecution witness (Corti) was properly granted:

The People are obligated to disclose exculpatory evidence in their possession which is favorable to the defendant and material to the issues of guilt or innocence … . Moreover, the duty of disclosing exculpatory material extends to disclosure of evidence impeaching the credibility of a prosecution witness whose testimony may be determinative of guilt or innocence … .

Here, the defendant was not provided with material regarding Cort’s participation as a witness in two unrelated homicide trials, along with prior agreements between Cort and law enforcement, including her use as a confidential informant by police and her placement in a witness relocation program following her participation in one of the unrelated homicide trials, during which her rent was paid by the Office of the Kings County District Attorney for approximately one year. This material contradicted Cort’s trial testimony that she did not have any “deals” with law enforcement and had not been in touch with the District Attorney’s Office “for a long period of time,” as well as the prosecutor’s arguments during summation that Cort “never took a deal” and “never asked for anything in return.” Significantly, Cort’s credibility was critical as she was the People’s only witness to testify that it was the defendant who shot the victim, and there was no other trial evidence directly linking the defendant to the crime … . Under these circumstances, in the context of the entire trial, Cort’s involvement with law enforcement “was both favorable and material to the defense, and the People’s failure to disclose this information to the defense violated defendant’s constitutional right to due process” … . In addition, the errors were compounded by the prosecution’s repetition and emphasis on the misinformation during summation … . People v Rodriguez, 2020 NY Slip Op 05234, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION OF A 1996 MURDER BASED UPON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined County Court properly granted defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction stemming from a 1996 murder, despite defendant’s confession, based upon evidence of third-party culpability, i.e., statements allegedly made by Gombert to Santoro about Gombert’s involvement in the crime:

… [W]e find that the newly discovered evidence “is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.10[1][g]). A reasonable jury could credit Santoro’s testimony regarding the statements made by Gombert, including that he could not be charged with the rape and murder of the victim because “[t]hey already got the other suckers,” and find that such statements raise a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s involvement in the subject crimes … . Moreover, had Santoro’s testimony been available to the defendant at trial, defense counsel could have advanced the theory that Gombert was the actual perpetrator of the crimes, rather than merely denying the defendant’s involvement … . In fact, the codefendant was acquitted following his third trial, at which Santoro’s testimony was admitted for the first time.

Further, although the evidence presented at the defendant’s trial included the defendant’s statement confessing to the crimes, the record reveals the existence of circumstances casting doubt on that statement. The portion of the defendant’s statement regarding how he tied the victim’s hands together was inconsistent with the testimony of a medical examiner for the People as to the manner in which the victim was “hogtied” with rope. In addition, the defendant presented testimony at trial from a polygraph examiner, who opined that the defendant was telling the truth during a polygraph examination when he initially denied raping and killing the victim. People v Krivak, 2020 NY Slip Op 05226, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SEEK COURT APPROVAL BEFORE ALLOWING INVESTIGATORS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES ACCESS TO RECORDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have required that defense counsel seek court approval before allowing investigators or other employees access to recordings:

Pursuant to CPL 245.70(6), a party who has unsuccessfully sought, or opposed the granting of, a protective order relating to the name, address, contact information, or statements of a person may obtain expedited review by an individual justice of the intermediate appellate court to which an appeal from a judgment of conviction would be taken. Where, as here, “the issue involves balancing the defendant’s interest in obtaining information for defense purposes against concerns for witness safety and protection, the question is appropriately framed as whether the determination made by the trial court was a provident exercise of discretion” … .

Applying the factors set forth in CPL 245.70(4), including concerns for witness safety and protection, I conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in requiring defense counsel to seek approval of the court before exhibiting the subject recordings to investigators or others employed by counsel. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the court should have permitted defense counsel to disclose the recordings to those employed by counsel or appointed to assist in the defense, without prior approval from the Supreme Court … . People v Clarke, 2020 NY Slip Op 05221, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

, ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED WEAPONS FOUND IN A LOCKED ROOM BELONGING TO DEFENDANT’S DECEASED BROTHER; WEAPONS POSSESSION CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the possession-of-a-weapon convictions, determined the evidence of constructive possession was insufficient and the convictions were therefore against the weight of the evidence:

The evidence demonstrated that the defendant resided in the third bedroom of the searched premises, and that the defendant’s brother had resided in the first bedroom up until his death in 2014 or 2015. There was also testimony that, after the defendant’s brother passed away, the door to the first bedroom was locked and remained locked. There was no evidence that the defendant frequented the first bedroom, had a key to that room or kept his belongings in that room. Although the police witnesses testified that they could not recall any damage to the door to the first bedroom, the defense introduced a photograph depicting damage to the door and frame after the search.

Moreover, although the police officers recovered a magazine containing seven 9 millimeter cartridges from the defendant’s bedroom, the evidence demonstrated that it was not the correct magazine for the pistol recovered from the first bedroom; it had to be manipulated in order to function properly with the pistol. Apart from the magazine, there was no other evidence connecting the defendant to the first bedroom or the weapons found therein. People v Branch, 2020 NY Slip Op 05220,  Second Dept 9-30-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ENSURED DEFENDANT WAS KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVING THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE BEFORE ACCEPTING DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA; IN THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT HE WAS DRUNK AND DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea (attempted burglary), determined Supreme Court should have ensured that the defendant understood he was waiving the intoxication defense by pleading guilty. During the plea colloquy defendant indicated he was drunk and didn’t know what he was doing when he entered a woman’s hotel room:

Once defendant raised the possible defense of intoxication during the allocution, the court was obligated to determine if he understood the defense, whether he in fact, had a viable defense and whether he wanted to waive the same … .

Defendant’s statement that he entered the victim’s hotel room “looking for money from the lady” did not effectively recant his earlier statement as to intoxication and did not relieve the court of its duty to engage in an additional inquiry into defendant’s understanding of the intoxication defense or the facts of the offense … . People v Muniz-Cayetano, 2020 NY Slip Op 05156, First Dept 9-29-20

 

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