You are here: / Criminal Law

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE DEEMED TOO HARSH BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY, THE PLEA DEAL DEFENDANT WAS OFFERED BEFORE TRIAL, AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEW EVIDENCE REVEALED BY THE TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s sentence was unduly harsh based upon his criminal history and the plea deal defendant was offered before trial:

… [T]he 10-year determinate sentence is unduly harsh and severe considering that defendant has no violent crimes on his record and was offered the opportunity to plead guilty to the charges in the indictment in exchange for a prison sentence of five years. It does not appear that any facts were revealed at trial that were unknown to the People or the court at the time the sentence promise was made. Under the circumstances, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the sentence on each count to a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years plus three years of postrelease supervision … . People v Green, 2020 NY Slip Op 00765, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

,

STATUTE CRIMINALIZING THE POSSESSION OF AN UNLICENSED FIREARM DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, determined that the statute prohibiting possession of an unlicensed firearm in the home does not violate the Second Amendment:

… [D]efendant contends that New York may not constitutionally impose any criminal sanction whatsoever on the unlicensed possession of a handgun in the home. * * *

… [I]t is beyond dispute that “New York has substantial, indeed compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention” … . Those concerns include the state’s “substantial and legitimate interest and[,] indeed, . . . grave responsibility, in insuring the safety of the general public from individuals who, by their conduct, have shown” that they should not be entrusted with a dangerous instrument … . …

… [T]the criminal prohibition on the unlicensed possession of a handgun, including in the home, bears a substantial relationship to the state’s interests. “In the context of firearm regulation, the legislature is far better equipped than the judiciary’ to make sensitive public policy judgments (within constitutional limits) concerning the dangers in carrying [and possessing] firearms and the manner to combat those risks” … . People v Tucker, 2020 NY Slip Op 00739, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS WARNED THE USE OF DRUGS WHILE ON FURLOUGH WOULD RESULT IN AN ENHANCED SENTENCE; MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING OR WITHDRAWAL OF THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the sentencing court should not have imposed an enhanced sentence because the record did not demonstrate defendant was warned the use of drugs while on furlough would result in a stiffer sentence:

… “[A] court may not impose an enhanced sentence unless, as is relevant here, it has informed the defendant of specific conditions that the defendant must abide by or risk such enhancement” … . A review of the transcript of all of the proceedings, including those at which defendant entered his guilty pleas, reflects that, although he received warnings that certain conduct could result in an enhanced sentence of up to nine years on the first indictment, he was never advised that a positive drug test could result in an enhanced sentence. Given that the furlough was granted off-the-record, the record before us does not disclose what, if any, warnings were provided to defendant prior to his release on furlough … . Moreover, when defendant objected to the enhanced sentence, the court did not advise him of the right to a hearing to contest the alleged violation … , and the record does not contain the positive drug test results, the testing date or any evidence as to when defendant consumed these drugs so as to establish that it occurred during the six-hour furlough … . Accordingly, the sentences imposed upon the first indictment must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court to either impose the original agreed-upon sentences or to give defendant an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea to that indictment … . People v Blanford, 2020 NY Slip Op 00646, Third Dept 1-30-20

 

PROTECTIVE ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE NEW DISCOVERY/DISCLOSURE STATUTES VACATED; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO BE HEARD ON THE PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, after an expedited review pursuant to the new Criminal Procedure Law section 245.70, vacated the protective order and remitted the matter to allow the defense to oppose the application for a protective order:

I conclude that the Supreme Court should have afforded defense counsel an opportunity to be heard on the People’s application for a protective order (see People v Bonifacio ___ AD3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op 00517 [2d Dept 2020]). Accordingly, the application by the defendant Carlson Small is granted, the Supreme Court’s ruling and protective order are vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to afford the defendants an opportunity to make arguments to that court with respect to the People’s application for a protective order, and for a new determination of that application thereafter. People v Reyes, 2020 NY Slip Op 00620, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ROBBERY CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY WAS TOO WEAK TO MEET THE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction determined the identification evidence was too weak to support the conviction in this robbery case. The conviction was deemed to be against the weight of the evidence:

Upon the exercise of our independent factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5]), we conclude that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence. “[W]eight of the evidence review requires a court first to determine whether an acquittal would not have been unreasonable. If so, the court must weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the court then decides whether the [factfinder] was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” … .

At the second trial, in this one-witness identification case, the complainant consistently had difficulty remembering details of the crime. She could not remember how she described the defendant, and when asked how she recognized him, she stated, “[b]y his shirt.” The description she provided of the perpetrator shortly after the incident did not match, in several ways, the defendant’s actual physical characteristics and appearance. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, several minutes after the incident, the defendant possessed neither the money nor the personal items which had allegedly been taken from the complainant. People v James, 2020 NY Slip Op 00615, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

, , ,

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DECLARED A MISTRIAL TO ACCOMMODATE A JUROR’S WEEKEND PLANS; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED; RETRIAL BARRED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, granting petitioner’s application for a writ of prohibition and dismissing the indictment, determined the trial court should not have, sua sponte, declared a mistrial to accommodate a juror’s weekend travel plans. Retrial was barred:

The trial court was not compelled by manifest necessity to declare a mistrial and terminate the proceedings …, and accordingly, retrial is barred under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Federal and New York State Constitutions … . It was an abuse of discretion to declare a mistrial in order to accommodate a juror’s weekend travel plans, including a Friday, which she belatedly informed the court about during deliberations, where the court, as requested by defendant, reasonably could have directed the juror to report for deliberations the following day, and the court also failed to confirm that the jury was hopelessly deadlocked at the time … . Matter of Bannister v Wiley, 2020 NY Slip Op 00522, First Dept 1-28-20

 

PROTECTIVE ORDER VACATED UPON EXPEDITED REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the protective order issued by Supreme Court, determined defense counsel should have been heard in opposition to the application for the protective order:

… [T]he matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to make arguments to that court with respect to the People’s application for a protective order.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted defense counsel’s request for an opportunity to be heard with respect to the People’s application for a protective order pursuant to CPL 245.70 … . … [T]he People advised this Court that they no longer oppose the application. People v Belfon, 2020 NY Slip Op 00519, Second Dept 1-27-20

 

SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING A PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO DELAY DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS MURDER CASE UNTIL ONE WEEK BEFORE TRIAL; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an expedited review of Supreme Court’s granting a protective order in a murder case, determined Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion, in part because defense counsel was notified of the ex parte proceeding:

On January 15, 2020, the Supreme Court convened in an open session in the presence of the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the defendant. After ascertaining that defense counsel would not waive a hearing on the protective order, the court ordered the courtroom sealed. The defendant was removed from the courtroom, and defense counsel stepped out of the courtroom. Defense counsel did not voice an objection to the court’s conduct of an ex parte proceeding. Nor did defense counsel seek to offer any arguments concerning any of the factors relevant to the determination as to whether, and to what extent, a protective order should be issued. The court then proceeded to conduct an ex parte proceeding regarding the People’s application. Thereafter, the court resumed with a continued open session attended by both defense counsel and the defendant. After the court informed defense counsel that it had granted the People’s application, the parties and the court proceeded to discuss other matters related to the case. During these proceedings, defense counsel inquired as to whether there was description of the shooting by a witness. The court responded by stating that defense counsel had been provided with a videotape that “pretty much shows you how the shooting occurred.” … The defendant now seeks expedited review of the court’s ruling pursuant to CPL 245.70(6).

… [T]he record reflects that the court considered the possibility of allowing defense counsel access to the information on the condition that it not be shared with the defendant personally; the court raised this possibility sua sponte.

It would have been better in my view to allow defense counsel to see the portions of the People’s written application that contained legal argument or other matter that would not reveal the information sought to be covered by the protective order, pending the court’s determination as to whether the sensitive portions of the People’s application should be sealed. Further, it would have been better in my view, even assuming that portions of the People’s written and oral presentations should be sealed, to permit defense counsel to participate in portions of the protective order proceeding where the substance of the sealed information is not discussed. In my view, defense counsel should be excluded from participation in the protective order review process only to the extent necessary to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information pending the court’s determination as to the issuance, and scope, of the protective order. People v Nash, 2020 NY Slip Op 00520, First Dept 1-27-20

 

PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO HOLD BACK INFORMATION (OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO AUTOMATIC DISCLOSURE) UNTIL AFTER JURY SELECTION VACATED; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO OPPOSE THE REQUEST FOR THE ORDER; THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW DISCOVERY PROVISIONS ADDRESSED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an expedited appellate review of the issuance of a protective order by Supreme Court, vacated the protective order and sent the matter back to allow the defense to make an argument in opposition. The defendant is accused of stabbing his wife multiple times. The People, pursuant to CPL 245.70, ex parte, applied for and were granted an order delaying, until after jury selection, the turning over of information otherwise subject to automatic disclosure under CPL 245.70. The decision makes an effort to explain how these new disclosure provisions should be handled by the trial courts:

Unlike the prior discovery statute, which allowed the People to wait until the time of trial to turn over witness statements (see CPL former 240.45), the new statutory scheme provides that disclosure is to be made within days after arraignment (see CPL 245.10[1][a]). The new statute provides that there shall be a “presumption in favor of disclosure” when interpreting certain listed provisions of CPL article 245 (CPL 245.20[7]), although the provision relating to protective orders (CPL 245.70) is not among those that are listed (see CPL 245.20[7]).

CPL 245.70 provides that upon a showing of good cause by either party, the court may at any time order that discovery be denied, restricted, conditioned, or deferred, or make such other order as is appropriate (see CPL 245.70[1]). It further provides that the court “may permit a party seeking or opposing a protective order under this section, or another affected person, to submit papers or testify on the record ex parte or in camera,” and that any such papers and a transcript of any such testimony may be sealed and constitute a part of the record on appeal (CPL 245.70[1]). …

The statute cannot be reasonably construed to permit a protective order to be sought entirely ex parte in every case. Since entirely ex parte proceedings should be allowed only in some cases, it necessarily follows that proceedings on applications for a protective order should be entirely ex parte only where the applicant has demonstrated the clear necessity for the entirety of the application, and the submissions in support of it, to be shielded from the opposing party. …

The necessity for appellate intervention would have been reduced had the Supreme Court, either before or after granting the subject protective order, afforded defense counsel the opportunity to be heard and thereafter determined whether to grant, adhere to, modify, or rescind the protective order. People v Bonifacio, 2020 NY Slip Op 00517, Second Dept 1-23-20

Similar issues and result in People v Reyes-Fuentes, 2020 NY Slip Op 00518, Second Dept 1-23-20

 

, ,

PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED BUT NEVER INDICTED OR CONVICTED DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People’s application for an upward department was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Evidence defendant was charged but not indicted or convicted does not meet the clear and convincing standard:

A departure from the presumptive risk level is generally the exception, not the rule (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]). Where the People seek an upward departure, they must identify an aggravating factor that tends to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines, and prove the facts in support of the aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the People failed to prove the existence of an aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence. In granting an upward departure, the court relied upon the defendant’s criminal history. However, the Guidelines account for an offender’s criminal history by assessing points under risk factor 9, and the defendant’s history here was not so extraordinary, extensive, or serious as to demonstrate that the assessment of those points was inadequate to capture his actual risk of reoffense and danger to the community . Further, an upward departure could not properly be based upon certain prior conduct of which the defendant was charged but either never indicted or never convicted, as the People’s evidence regarding that alleged conduct did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard … . People v Pittman, 2020 NY Slip Op 00443, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

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