You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE COURT, DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE PROSECUTOR WERE UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR A PAROLE SUPERVISION SENTENCE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY; THEREFORE THE MATTER CAN BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not eligible for a parole supervision sentence and the court, defense counsel and the prosecutor mistakenly believed defendant was eligible. Defendant’s guilty plea was based upon the understanding the court would consider such a sentence (which the court ultimately did not impose). Because all parties misunderstood the law, defendant could not be expected to have preserved the error by moving to withdraw his plea and the matter can therefore be considered on appeal:

… [W]e conclude that defendant’s plea should be vacated because “[i]t is impossible to have confidence, on a record like this, that defendant had a clear understanding of what he was doing when he entered his plea” … . In short, we “cannot countenance a conviction that seems to be based on complete confusion by all concerned” … . Where, as here, “the prosecutor, defense counsel and the court all suffered from the same misunderstanding of the [court’s sentencing discretion], it would be unreasonable to conclude that defendant understood it” … . Although the court did not commit to a sentence of parole supervision under CPL 410.91, it erroneously indicated that defendant was eligible for such a sentence and stated that it would consider such a sentence, among all sentencing options, at sentencing—it did not qualify its statement or advise defendant that there was a possibility that he was not eligible for such a sentence … . We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the superior court information. In light of our determination, we do not reach defendant’s remaining contentions. People v Work, 2020 NY Slip Op 00962, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

,

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND MURDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the trial evidence did not support consecutive sentences for criminal possession of a weapon and murder:

We agree with the defendant that the sentencing court could not lawfully direct that the sentence imposed upon one of the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree run consecutive to the sentence imposed upon the conviction of murder in the second degree. As the defendant correctly contends, it is impossible, based on the indictment or the trial court’s charge, to determine whether the act that formed the basis of the jury’s verdict on the criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree counts was not the basis for its conviction on the murder in the second degree count. Therefore, the People have failed to meet their burden of proving the validity of consecutive sentences … . People v McClinton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00879, Second Department 2-5-20

 

,

RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS MADE AWARE OF A JUROR’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DELIBERATIONS AND THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY; THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DNA TESTING OF GUM DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT WHILE IN CUSTODY WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the for cause challenges to two jurors should have been granted and the record does not indicate defense counsel was made aware of a juror’s complaint to the judge about the deliberations and the contents of a note from the jury. The decision dealt with several suppression issues, including the finding that DNA testing of a piece of gum discarded by the defendant when he was in custody was proper:

At the commencement of the second day of deliberations, the court met with counsel and deliberating juror C.H., who had left the court a telephone message expressing concerns about deliberations. This conversation took place outside the defendant’s presence. Although the court properly attempted to keep its communication with C.H. ministerial by simply directing her to put her concerns in writing, C.H. refused to accept the court’s directions, expressing concerns about the course of deliberations, including a concern that someone was “stirring the jury” and that other jurors had been “influenced.” The court eventually directed a court officer to return C.H. to the jury room and provide her with writing materials. * * *

After the colloquy with C.H. and following an off-the-record discussion, the defendant was returned to the courtroom, and the court stated that it had received a note from the jury which had been marked as Court Exhibit X and “sealed with the consent of all parties.” No further discussion of Court Exhibit X appears on the record. * * *

We cannot assume, from the County Court’s statement that the parties agreed to seal the note, that counsel was made aware of the exact contents of the note since “an insufficient record cannot be overcome with speculation about what might have occurred. The presumption of regularity cannot salvage an O’Rama error of this nature” … . Moreover, since the failure to disclose a jury note to counsel is a mode of proceedings error, it cannot be overlooked as harmless even where the evidence is otherwise overwhelming … . People v Kluge, 2020 NY Slip Op 00878, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

, ,

SEX TRAFFICKING CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the sex trafficking conviction, determined there was insufficient evidence defendant used force or participated in a scheme to compel the alleged victim to engage in prostitution by threat of physical harm. The sex trafficking conviction was deemed to be against the weight of the evidence:

The evidence showed that the alleged victim, her mother, and a third woman, sought to earn more money than they were earning in Florida, that they voluntarily traveled with defendant to New York to earn money as prostitutes, and that defendant left them alone at times in Florida and New York. There was no evidence presented at trial that defendant ever threatened to harm the alleged victim if she failed to begin or continue working as a prostitute. A detective described a call he overheard between defendant and the alleged victim, after she was apprehended, in which defendant was angry because he believed that she did not get money from a client. However, this does not suffice to prove any use of force or a “scheme” to compel her to work as a prostitute. Similarly, although the third woman in the group that came with defendant from Florida testified that she was a “little intimidated” by an argument over money between defendant and another man, this does not establish the required threat of harm, even assuming the alleged victim also saw and heard the argument. People v Hayes, 2020 NY Slip Op 00832, First Dept 2-4-20

 

,

THE WARRANTLESS SEIZURE AND SEARCH OF A BAG IN DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE; ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the inevitable discovery doctrine did not apply to a “diabetes bag” seized by the police. The bag should have been suppressed, but error was deemed harmless:

On the day of his arrest, a police officer pulled defendant’s vehicle over for failing to signal. Defendant had a passenger with him. After approaching the vehicle, the officer observed that defendant appeared to be under the influence of drugs and placed him under arrest. The passenger was also arrested. At a suppression hearing, the officer testified that, after she arrested defendant and seated him in her patrol vehicle, defendant indicated that he had diabetes medication in his vehicle. Defendant did not give the officer permission to retrieve the bag of medication from his vehicle or say that he needed it at that time, nor did he give her permission to open the bag. The officer testified that she retrieved the bag for defendant because defendant would be allowed access to certain medication in lockup; she did not intend to give the bag to defendant while he was in the patrol vehicle. The officer looked in the bag and found needles, “narcotics,” and “some residue”—not diabetes medication. Defendant’s vehicle was subsequently impounded pursuant to Buffalo Police Department (BPD) written policy. During the inventory search of the vehicle, the officers recovered, inter alia, methamphetamine. * * *

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained from the diabetes bag pursuant to the inevitable discovery doctrine. The contents of the diabetes bag that defendant sought to suppress was the “very evidence” that was obtained as the “immediate consequence of the challenged police conduct” … . People v Hayden-larson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00791, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

,

THERE SHOULD ONLY BE ONE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI); HERE THERE WERE TWO ASSESSMENTS IN TWO COUNTIES, ONE AT LEVEL TWO AND ONE AT LEVEL THREE; THE LEVEL THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there should not be more than one SORA risk assessment for convictions stemming from the same course of conduct and based upon the same Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI). The first risk assessment was in Allegany County and designated defendant a level two risk. The second risk assessment was in Cattaraugus County and designated defendant a level three risk based upon the evidence. The Cattaraugus County assessment was vacated:

… [D]efendant was convicted in Cattaraugus County Court upon his plea of guilty of attempted sodomy in the second degree and, that same year, he was convicted in Allegany County Court upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree. The convictions stemmed from a course of conduct against one victim that occurred in both jurisdictions. Defendant was sentenced in both cases and, prior to his release from prison, Allegany County Court held a proceeding to determine his risk level designation under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law § 168 et seq.) and designated him a level two risk. Cattaraugus County Court subsequently held a SORA proceeding utilizing a risk assessment instrument (RAI) and case summary that were substantively identical to those used in the Allegany County SORA proceeding, but designated defendant a level three risk. On a prior appeal … , we affirmed the order of Cattaraugus County Court designating him a level three risk.

“Where, as here, a single RAI addressing all relevant conduct is prepared, the goal of assessing the risk posed by the offender is fulfilled by a single SORA adjudication. To hold otherwise—that is, to permit multiple risk level determinations based on conduct included in a single RAI—would result in redundant proceedings and constitute a waste of judicial resources” … . In order to prevent multiple courts from reaching conflicting conclusions based on the same RAI, “one—and only one—sentencing court should render a risk level determination based on all conduct contained in the RAI” … . Inasmuch as the Cattaraugus County SORA proceeding was duplicative, we reverse the order and vacate defendant’s risk level determination  by Cattaraugus County Court … . People v Miller, 2020 NY Slip Op 00766, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

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

 

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