You are here: / Criminal Law

DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT AT RESENTENCING ABSENT WAIVER, RESENTENCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s resentence, determined the right to be personally present at sentencing extends to resentencing:

The defendant’s fundamental right to be “personally present at the time sentence is pronounced” (CPL 380.40[1]) extends to resentencing or to the  …amendment of a sentence … . While a defendant convicted of a felony may waive the right to be present at resentencing, this waiver must be expressly made … . A “[w]aiver results from a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision” … . Here, the defendant was not produced at resentencing and the record is devoid of any indication that he expressly waived his right to be present. Thus, the Supreme Court’s failure to have the defendant produced at the resentencing proceeding violated the defendant’s fundamental right to be present at the time of sentence. People v Rodriguez, 2020 NY Slip Op 04493, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

,

RESPONDENT IS A DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CONFINEMENT, NOT STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST), SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement under the Mental Hygiene Law. Supreme Court had found respondent was entitled to release under strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST).

Throughout the entirety of the respondent’s confinement and incarceration, he has never successfully completed any sex offender treatment program. The respondent was violent and “destructive” in group therapy, and repeatedly threatened and assaulted his treatment providers and other staff members. During interviews with treatment providers and evaluators, the respondent threatened to kill the judge who sentenced him; indicated that he derived excitement out of humiliating, tormenting, hunting, and hurting other people; and indicated that he kept a “revenge” list in his mind of people he intended to retaliate against. The respondent also repeatedly feigned psychiatric illnesses that he did not have in an attempt to manipulate the evaluators. Up until the time of the subject dispositional hearing, the respondent continued to make threats and express a desire to kill facility staff members. …

The State presented the testimony of two experts, each of whom opined to a reasonable or high degree of psychological certainty that the respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement. Both experts diagnosed the respondent with several disorders that affect his emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity in a manner making it likely that the respondent would engage in recidivist violent sexual offense behavior again. Both experts’ testimony also established that the respondent is presently unable to control his behavior because he has steadfastly refused to meaningfully engage in any treatment program. Each of the experts believed that the respondent’s disorders were treatable, but because the respondent had not successfully completed treatment to resolve his disorders, deviance, offense cycle, or triggers, the disorders remained untreated, and the respondent lacked the ability to control his behavior. Matter of State of New York v Raul L., 2020 NY Slip Op 04479, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM’S FACIAL SCARS WERE SHOWN TO THE JURY NO DESCRIPTION OF THE SCARS APPEARS IN THE TRIAL RECORD AND NO PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SCARS WAS INTRODUCED; THEREFORE THE SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT ELEMENT OF ASSAULT FIRST WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED AND THE ASSAULT FIRST CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, finding the assault first conviction to be against the weight of the evidence and reducing it to attempted assault first, determined the record of the evidence presented at trial did not support the serious disfigurement element in this knife attack case:

The testimonial, photographic and documentary evidence demonstrated that the victim sustained a laceration to his right cheek that was approximately four centimeters long, as well as a similarly sized laceration transversing the tip of his nose to his right nostril. Both lacerations were sutured by a plastic surgeon. Although the evidence clearly demonstrated the locations of the lacerations and their size prior to and immediately after suturing, the record is imprecise as to the extent and appearance of any resulting facial scars. The People did not introduce a photograph depicting the victim’s nose and right cheek at the time of trial or any time after the sutures had been removed and the lacerations healed … . Further, although the physician who treated the victim testified that the victim was expected to have facial scars and the victim did in fact display facial scars to the jury, the People failed to make a contemporaneous record of what the jury observed, so as to demonstrate the extent and appearance of those scars … . Moreover, despite their prominent locations, there is no indication that the relatively small facial lacerations produced jagged, uneven or “unusually disturbing” scars … . In the absence of a photograph depicting the victim’s facial scars or an on-the-record description of the victim’s scars at the time of trial, we cannot conclude that the record evidence supports a finding of serious disfigurement … . People v Harris, 2020 NY Slip Op 04431, Third Dept 8-6-20

 

,

POLICE OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING DEFENDANT’S CAR AFTER OBSERVING A TRAFFIC VIOLATION, DIRECTING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR TO RETURN TO THE CAR AFTER IT PULLED INTO A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY, AND DETAINING THE DEFENDANT AND CONDUCTING A SEARCH ON THE PROPERTY AFTER THE HOMEOWNER SAID HE DID NOT KNOW THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the police officer acted properly in following the defendant’s car after observing a traffic violation, directing the occupants of the car to return to car after it pulled into a residential driveway, detaining the defendant when the homeowner said he did not know the defendant and the others, and arresting the defendant after a weapon was found after a search behind the house:

The officer observed a traffic infraction when the vehicle ran a stop sign …  and was accordingly justified in approaching the vehicle after he had caught up to it … . Defendant suggests that the traffic infraction was a pretext for making the approach, but that contention is unpreserved for our review … . As a result, although one might reasonably question why the officer, upon seeing a traffic violation of sufficient gravity to cause him to make a U-turn and follow the vehicle, did not put on his siren or emergency lights, and then approached the vehicle with more apparent interest in the passengers than the driver, the record was not developed on the possibility of an ulterior motive for the officer’s actions. It follows that the record affords no basis for defendant’s speculation as to the officer’s motivations. We are, in any event, bound by controlling precedent that those speculative motivations would not render an otherwise proper approach invalid … .

The officer had discretion to “control the scene in a way that maximize[d]” safety as the approach unfolded, could have directed defendant to exit the vehicle had he been in it and, in  … view of the heightened safety concerns stemming from defendant’s refusal to return to the vehicle and brief disappearance behind the house, was free to direct that defendant sit on the hood of the vehicle upon his return … . Shortly thereafter, the officer learned that the homeowner did not know anyone in the vehicle despite their claims and had watched defendant throw something away behind the house. The foregoing created a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity by defendant that warranted his detention, after which the handgun was recovered and afforded probable cause for his arrest … . People v Price, 2020 NY Slip Op 04430, Third Dept 8-6-20

 

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO MAKE A PERSONAL STATEMENT BEFORE RESENTENCING, RESENTENCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s resentence, determined defendant should have been allowed to make a sentence before the sentence was pronounced:

At that proceeding, the defendant requested an opportunity to address the court. The court denied the defendant’s request. The defendant appeals, and we reverse.

A defendant is entitled “to make a statement personally in his or her own behalf, and before pronouncing sentence the court must ask the defendant whether he or she wishes to make such a statement” ( CPL 380.50 [1]). “[T]he provisions of CPL 380.50 apply to occasions of resentencing as well as to those of initial sentencing”  … . Here, the defendant was denied that opportunity. Accordingly, we remit the matter … for resentencing to give the defendant an opportunity to make a statement in his behalf … . People v Taylor, 2020 NY Slip Op 04413, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

,

BY ENTERING A PLEA AGREEMENT WITH A TESTIFYING CODEFENDANT THE TRIAL JUDGE ABANDONED THE ROLE OF A NEUTRAL ARBITER AND DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial before a different judge, determined defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the judge’s entering a plea agreement with a testifying codefendant:

The defendant …  contends that he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial by the County Court’s act of entering into a plea agreement with the testifying codefendant. The court’s agreement with the codefendant was made in conjunction with a cooperation agreement reached between the codefendant and the People. The codefendant had been charged with, inter alia, murder in the second degree. The People had promised to recommend a determinate sentence of imprisonment between two and seven years in exchange for the codefendant’s guilty plea to the reduced charge of attempted robbery in the second degree. However, the court promised the codefendant a sentence of only probation in exchange for her testimony against the defendant. Although the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), we nevertheless reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

We agree with the defendant that, under the circumstances here, the County Court committed reversible error when it “negotiated and entered into a [plea] agreement with a codefendant requiring that individual to testify against defendant in exchange for a more favorable sentence” … . By doing so, “the trial court abandoned the role of a neutral arbiter and assumed the function of an interested party, thereby creating a specter of bias that requires reversal” … . People v Greenspan, 2020 NY Slip Op 04408, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

THE JUDGE DID NOT PRONOUNCE THE LENGTH OF THE TERM OF PROBATION, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the judge’s failure to pronounce the term of probation required remittal:

CPL 380.20 requires that courts “must pronounce sentence in every case where a conviction is entered.” “When the sentencing court fails to orally pronounce a component of the sentence, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for resentencing in compliance with the statutory scheme” … . Here, although the parties do not dispute that, as part of the negotiated disposition, the defendant was promised a term of probation of three years, the sentence must be vacated and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing because the court failed to pronounce the length of the probation term … . People v Childs, 2020 NY Slip Op 04404, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

, ,

RESTITUTION ORDERED WAS GREATER THAN THAT AGREED TO IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; RESTITUTION VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the restitution award in the interest of justice, determine the restitution ordered was not that agreed to in the plea agreement:

Defendant contends that Supreme Court improperly enhanced the sentence by ordering him to pay restitution in an amount greater than what was agreed to under the plea agreement. The record supports his claim, and the People concede that the restitution award should be reduced. Although defendant failed to preserve his claim by requesting a hearing or objecting to the amount of restitution at sentencing, we deem it appropriate to take corrective action in the interest of justice … . As defendant was not sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement, the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court to provide defendant with the opportunity to either accept the sentence with the enhanced restitution award or withdraw his guilty plea … . In addition, as Supreme Court failed to set forth the time and manner of payment of the amount of restitution in the restitution order, this omission must also be addressed upon remittal … . People v Gravell, 2020 NY Slip Op 04344, Third Dept 7-30-20

 

,

THE DUPLICITY IN THE INDICTMENT WAS REMEDIED BY DETAILS PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE PRIOR TO TRIAL AND BY DETAILED TRIAL EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department held the prosecutor had remedied the duplicity in the indictment by providing information in a supplemental bill of particulars and a “trial indictment” after the motion to dismiss for duplicity was made, information corroborated by detailed trial evidence;

With respect to the counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree, after defendant made his motion, the prosecutor provided him with a supplemental bill of particulars that identified a precise date for each of the first 10 counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree. We conclude that dismissal of those counts is not required because the duplicity was “cured by reference to a bill of particulars supplementing the indictment” … . ,,,

With respect to the counts of rape in the first degree, although the duplicity of those counts was left unaddressed by the supplemental bill of particulars, before trial, the prosecutor provided defendant with a document styled as a “trial indictment,” which indicated that the People intended to prove a specific instance with respect to each of the counts on which defendant was ultimately convicted … . In addition, the People provided evidence of those specific instances of forced sexual intercourse at trial by offering the testimony of the victim … . The victim’s testimony was detailed, graphic, and corroborated by receipts, photographs, and emails that allowed the victim to pinpoint the precise dates on which each of those incidents of forced sexual intercourse occurred. “Because defendant was convicted only of those counts of [rape in the first degree] where pretrial notice of specific instances was given and where those specific instances were proved at trial” … , we conclude that dismissal of those counts as duplicitous was not required. People v Quiros, 2020 NY Slip Op 04279, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REDUCED IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER, BURGLARY, MURDER CASE DUE TO DEFENDANT’S AGE AND MENTAL ILLNESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department found defendant’s sentence of 25 years to life in this manslaughter, burglary, murder case unduly harsh and severe due to his age and his mental illness. Sentence reduced to 15 years to life:

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 may exercise that power, “if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentencing court” … . Defendant was 20 years old at the time of the offense. His criminal history consisted of only three incidents within the year leading up to the killing, all of which stemmed from the onset of defendant’s documented schizophrenia and all charges were dismissed as a result of defendant’s incapacity due to mental disease or defect. Here, at trial, both experts testified that, at the time of the killing, defendant was experiencing delusions. Indeed, the People’s own expert expressly recognized that defendant had a diminished capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his actions at the time and that “the action was a product of his symptoms of mental illness.” … [W]e modify the judgment by reducing the sentences of imprisonment imposed for manslaughter in the first degree under count one of the indictment and for burglary in the first degree under counts three and four of the indictment to determinate terms of 15 years, to be followed by the five years of postrelease supervision imposed by the court, and by reducing the sentence imposed for murder in the second degree under count two of the indictment to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 15 years to life. People v Gillie, 2020 NY Slip Op 04275, Third Dept 7-24-20

 

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