You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

POSSESSION OF SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS IS PUNISHABLE BY A FINE AND JAIL TIME UNDER THE SANITARY CODE; THEREFORE A SEARCH WARRANT AUTHORIZING A SEARCH FOR SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS IS VALID; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL HERE WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid, but went on to find that the search warrant and search were valid and proper. The defendant argued that the search for synthetic cannabinoids not authorized because that substance is not encompassed by the Penal Law. However, the Sanitary Code makes possession of the substance a violation which can result in a fine and a jail sentence:

… [T]he appeal waiver was invalid because County Court failed to advise defendant that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty … , and also because the court increased the sentence, but failed to inquire into whether defendant wished to withdraw his consent to the appeal waiver … . …

A search warrant application must include “[a] statement that there is reasonable cause to believe that property of a kind or character described in [CPL] 690.10 may be found in or upon a designated or described place” (CPL 690.35 [3] [b]). Personal property that “[c]onstitutes evidence or tends to demonstrate that an offense was committed in this state” is subject to seizure (CPL 690.10 [4]). “Offense” is defined as “conduct for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or to a fine is provided by any law of this state” (Penal Law § 10.00 [1]). Further, a “[v]iolation” is defined as “an offense . . . for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of [15] days cannot be imposed” (Penal Law § 10.00 [3]).

Defendant is correct in asserting that the Penal Law prohibitions against the possession of controlled substances and marihuana do not specifically include synthetic cannabinoid. However, the Sanitary Code makes it “unlawful for any individual . . . to possess, manufacture, distribute, sell or offer to sell any synthetic phenethylamine or synthetic cannabinoid,” with exceptions not applicable here (10 NYCRR 9-1.2). Significantly, “[t]he provisions of the [S]anitary [C]ode shall have the force and effect of law and the non-compliance or non-conformance with any provision thereof shall constitute a violation punishable on conviction for a first offense by a fine not exceeding [$250] or by imprisonment . . . not exceeding [15] days, or both” (Public Health Law § 229 …). It follows that, by definition, a search warrant may be issued for the alleged possession of synthetic cannabinoids … . People v Morehouse, 2020 NY Slip Op 03048, Thrid Dept 5-28-20

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL ARGUED DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS NOT VIABLE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, remitting the matter for a determination of defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion to set aside the verdict, determined defendant’s attorney took a position adverse to defendant by arguing defendant’s pro se motion was not viable:

Prior to sentencing, the defendant moved, pro se, to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel stated that the defendant asked him to adopt the motion but that defense counsel did not believe that it was “viable.” He added that, in his opinion, the motion argued matters that were not “for the purview of the [c]ourt.” The Supreme Court declined to review the motion.

As the People concede, defense counsel, by taking a position adverse to that of his client on the motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30, deprived the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel … . People v Sonds, 2020 NY Slip Op 03036, Second Dept 5-27-20

 

,

COUNTY COURT’S POST-JUDGMENT DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION, AFTER A HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WAS AN INTERMEDIATE ORDER WHICH IS NOT APPEALABLE; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION TO REFLECT THE RECENT DENIAL OF THE SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE AMENDED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WOULD THEN BE APPEALABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the post-judgment order denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statements was an intermediate order which was not appealable. The Second Circuit, pursuant to defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ordered defendant’s release unless a state court adjudicated the voluntariness of his confession (made in 1986 when defendant was 16). County Court held a new suppression hearing and issued the order denying suppression. The Third Department sent the matter back to allow the amendment of the judgment of conviction to reflect the recent denial of the suppression motion, which would then be appealable:

Although not raised by the parties, we must first address the threshold issue of the appealability of County Court’s order. Indeed, an order denying a defendant’s suppression motion is an unreviewable intermediate order (see CPL 450.10). Ordinarily, in the course of a criminal proceeding, suppression hearings occur prior to a judgment of conviction and are reviewed incident to the direct appeal from that judgment. Nevertheless, there are cases, including the instant appeal, where a suppression hearing occurred after entry of a judgment of conviction … . In each of these cases, the trial court was specifically instructed that, if the defendant did not prevail in the suppression hearing, the judgment of conviction should be amended to reflect that fact … . Here, however, the Second Circuit did not advise County Court to take this step … , and there is no evidence in the record that an amended judgement of conviction was entered after the People prevailed at the suppression hearing.

Accordingly, because an amended judgment of conviction has not been entered, we must dismiss this appeal. This harsh outcome appears at odds with the federal habeas corpus remand, which, in our view, was intended to permit review of the suppression hearing until finally decided by the court of last resort. However, this dismissal provides County Court the opportunity to amend the judgment of conviction to reflect the denial of the suppression motion, and defendant could then appeal as of right from the amended judgment of conviction (see CPL 450.10 [1]). People v Dearstyne, 2020 NY Slip Op 02951, Third Dept 5-21-20

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARKS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HER GUILTY PLEA CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRING THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW COUNSEL; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the sentencing court should have assigned new counsel to defendant based upon defense counsel’s remarks about defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw her guilty plea, which created a conflict of interest. The dissenters argued that, before defense made the remarks evincing a conflict of interest, the sentencing judge had denied defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw her plea without prejudice to retain counsel and make a new motion:

After Supreme Court agreed to adjourn sentencing, without having decided defendant’s pro se motion, defense counsel requested that he be permitted to put “a couple [of] things on the record.” Upon receiving the court’s permission, defense counsel proceeded to make several detrimental statements that were adverse and prejudicial to defendant. At this point, a conflict of interest arose between defendant and defense counsel, and Supreme Court was obligated to relieve defense counsel of his representation of defendant … . Supreme Court, however, did not acknowledge that a conflict of interest had arisen or inform defendant that she was entitled to the assignment of new counsel, should she opt to avail herself of that option.

When defendant subsequently appeared in Supreme Court for sentencing, she was accompanied by her original assigned counsel.Once again, Supreme Court did not raise or address the conflict of interest that had previously arisen between defendant and defense counsel, assign new counsel or advise defendant that she was entitled to the assignment of new counsel. Defense counsel requested that defendant be granted an additional adjournment, … stating that defendant had retained a certain named attorney, but that “[t]he funds just [had not] reached him yet.” Without having afforded defendant an opportunity to confer with new counsel regarding her motion to withdraw her plea or having ruled on that motion, Supreme Court denied the adjournment request and proceeded to sentencing. By failing to relieve defense counsel of his representation of defendant once the conflict of interest arose and to either assign new counsel or permit defendant a sufficient opportunity to retain alternate counsel to represent her, Supreme Court deprived defendant of her right to the effective assistance of counsel in connection with her motion to withdraw her plea … . People v Maldonado, 2020 NY Slip Op 02953, Third Dept 5-21-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IMPROPERLY ADDRESSED TO THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP, WHICH INCLUDED PEACE OFFICERS AS OPPOSED TO POLICE OFFICERS, THE WARRANT WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO POLICE OFFICERS AS WELL; THE PARTICIPATION OF PEACE OFFICERS IN THE SEARCH WAS LIMITED AND DID NOT INVALIDATE THE SEARCH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the fact that corrections officers (i.e., peace officers) participated in a search, along with police officers, did not invalidate the search:

There is no dispute that the search warrant was properly addressed to police officers of the City of Middletown Police Department and police officers of the New York State Police (see CPL 1.20[34][a], [d]). Accordingly, the search warrant complied with the statutory requirement that it “be addressed to a police officer whose geographical area of employment embraces or is embraced or partially embraced by the county of issuance” (CPL 690.25[1]).

The defendant is correct that the search warrant was improperly addressed to the Special Operations Group, since it includes members who are not police officers within the meaning of the statute (see CPL 690.25[1]; see also CPL 2.10[25]). However, “[s]earch warrants should be tested in a commonsense and realistic manner with minor omissions and inaccuracies not affecting an otherwise valid warrant”  … . * * *

Here, the record of the suppression hearing demonstrates that the Special Operations Group played a limited role in the execution of the warrant. Members of that group merely secured entry to the residence for the benefit of the police officers who actually conducted the search and recovered the physical evidence at issue. People v Ward, 2020 NY Slip Op 02943, Second Dept 5-20-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED A PLEA WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT IN MANDATORY DEPORTATION COULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT; THE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel should not have been denied without a hearing. The defendant presented sufficient evidence that defense counsel could have negotiated a plea which would not result in mandatory deportation:

Where the basis of a claim for ineffective counsel is counsel’s failure to attempt to negotiate an immigration friendly plea, defendant has to show that there is a reasonable probability that the People would have made such an offer … . If the likelihood that the People would have made such an offer is speculative, then the motion may be denied without a hearing … . Here, however, defendant’s motion shows that there was a reasonable possibility that his plea counsel could have secured a plea deal with less severe immigration consequences. …

Defendant has adequately alleged that there was a reasonable possibility that the People would have offered defendant such a plea, despite the fact that the drug possession charge is a lesser-included offense to the drug sale charge. First, the People agreed to a sentence of one year in prison and one year of post-release supervision in order to cover defendant’s drug offenses. This suggests that there was a reasonable possibility that the People would have agreed to a different, immigration-favorable disposition resulting in the same aggregate prison time … . …

Second, both offenses subject defendant to equally enhanced sentences if he were to be convicted of another felony within 10 years … . …

Third, if the People had only been willing to offer the lesser-included offense together with a longer sentence, defendant might well have been willing to agree to that. …

Finally, there is no evidence that the People specifically sought a conviction on the drug sales offense in order to secure a harsher immigration consequence for defendant … . …

‘… [D]efendant demonstrated a reasonable possibility that he would have rejected his plea had he known that he could have obtained a sentence that had less harsh immigration consequences … . People v George, 2020 NY Slip Op 02852, First Dept 5-14-20

 

REFERENCES TO DEVIATE BEHAVIOR AND USE OF FORCE IN PETITIONER-INMATE’S CRIME AND SENTENCE INFORMATION FORM AND HIS COMPAS RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SEXUAL OFFENSES COMMITTED; THE PETITION SEEKING CORRECTION OF THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined petitioner-inmate had raised legitimate issues about the contents of his Crime and Sentence Information (CSI) form and his COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment Instrument requiring further proceedings in this Article 78 action. Specifically petitioner argued that references to “deviate” behavior and use of force in connection with sexual offenses were inaccurate:

… [W]ith respect to the CSI form, petitioner was not convicted of any crimes involving an element of “deviate” behavior … . Additionally, with regard to the challenged characterization in the COMPAS instrument indicating that petitioner committed a “[s]ex [o]ffense with [f]orce,” we note that petitioner was not convicted of a crime involving “force” or “forcible” contact … . Accordingly, to the extent that the inclusion of such references in the CSI form and COMPAS instrument could be perceived as misleading and be potentially prejudicial to “future deliberations concerning the petitioner’s status” … , we find that, at this stage of the proceeding, in the absence of a more developed record, petitioner has stated a potentially valid cause of action. Because respondent has yet to serve an answer in this matter, this matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for this purpose … . Matter of Staropoli v Botsford, 2020 NY Slip Op 02840, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT SETTLED WHETHER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW APPLIES TO A CIVIL PROCEEDING, SUPREME COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT THE QUESTIONING OF PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER ABOUT HER SEXUAL HISTORY TO PREVENT EMBARRASSMENT AND HARASSMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s protective order prohibiting plaintiff’s child from being questioned about her sexual history. The complaint alleged the child was raped during a sleep over at defendants’ home. The complaint alleged several theories of liability, including negligent supervision. Supreme Court held that the Rape Shield Law applied to this civil case. The Third Department determined it did not need to reach that issue, holding that the court had the authority to prohibit the testimony to protect the child from embarrassment:

… Supreme Court was required to balance plaintiff’s concern that the child’s sexual history is irrelevant, and that questions of this nature are nothing more than a form of intimidation and embarrassment, against defendants’ argument that the child had a motive to fabricate the allegations of the assault because of a purported pregnancy. The record reveals that Supreme Court undertook a balancing of these concerns.

We find that plaintiff met her burden of showing annoyance and embarrassment. The child’s sexual history, sexual conduct and pregnancies are not relevant or material to the elements of the causes of action for negligence, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress or loss of services … . Moreover, it has been determined that there is limited value to testimony concerning the sexual past of a victim of a sexual assault; instead, it often serves only to harass the victim and confuse the jurors … . Lisa I. v Manikas, 2020 NY Slip Op 02846, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

, ,

THE CONCEPTS OF ‘OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE’ AND ‘HARMLESS ERROR’ DISCUSSED IN DEPTH; THE MAJORITY FOUND THE EVIDENCE OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR HARMLESS; THE CONCURRENCE FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING BUT FOUND THE ERROR HARMLESS UNDER A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS; THE DISSENT FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reached different conclusions about how the erroneous denial of defendant’s motion to suppress the cell site location data should be treated on appeal under a harmless error analysis. The majority and the concurrence applied different harmless error analyses but concluded the conviction should be affirmed. The dissent argued the error was not harmless requiring a new trial. The decision includes useful, comprehensive discussions of “overwhelming evidence” and “harmless error. “The dissent summarized the three positions as follows:

From the dissent:

In essence, the majority applies the longstanding New York test of first assessing whether the evidence adduced at trial was overwhelming in favor of conviction, concludes that it was, and therefore the admission of the cell phone location data was harmless since it could not have influenced the result of the trial. The concurrence disagrees with the finding that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, but finds the error of admitting the cell phone location data nonetheless harmless; the concurrence maintains that, since its effect was to favor, or disfavor, the contentions of each side equally, this is one of the exceedingly rare cases where, despite the absence of overwhelming evidence of guilt, the admission of tainted evidence, however misguided, was, in the words of the leading Court of Appeals case of People v Crimmins (36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]), nothing more than the “sheerest technicality.” Because I believe that the other evidence of defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming, and the effect of admitting the cell phone location data not necessarily neutral, I dissent and would reverse the judgment of conviction. People v Perez, 2020 NY Slip Op 02684, Third Dept 5-7-20

 

APPELLANT, WHO HAD PUT UP HER OWN MONEY FOR DEFENDANT’S BAIL, WAS ENTITLED TO REMISSION OF THE BAIL FORFEITED WHEN DEFENDANT MISSED HIS COURT DATE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVITS AND PSYCHIATRIST’S LETTER EXPLAINING THE MENTAL-HEALTH-RELATED REASONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appellant’s pro se application for remission of the forfeited bail should have been granted. Appellant put up her own money for the bail. In support of her application for remission of the bail she submitted her own affidavit, defendant’s affidavit and a letter from a psychiatrist who had treated the defendant. Supreme Court refused to consider the affidavits and letter which explained defendant had become depressed upon the death of his younger brother, began abusing drugs and went off his mental health medication, resulting in his missing his court date. Instead Supreme Court relied on the court’s form application for remission of bail which was submitted by the appellant. The form application did not have any space for an explanation of the reasons for defendant’s missing his court date:

A court may forfeit a bail bond “[i]f, without sufficient excuse, a principal does not appear when required or does not render himself amenable to the orders and processes of the criminal court wherein bail has been posted” (CPL 540.10[1]). When this occurs, the surety may make an application for remission of the forfeited bail, which the court may grant “upon such terms as are just” (CPL 540.30[2]). “[S]uch an application should be granted only under exceptional circumstances and to promote the ends of justice. In making the application, a defendant or surety has the burden of proving that the defendant’s failure to appear was not deliberate and willful, and that the failure did not prejudice the People or deprive them of any rights” … . We find that appellant met all of these requirements. People v Nichols, 2020 NY Slip Op 02741, First Dept 5-7-20

 

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