You are here: / Criminal Law

WAIVER OF INDICTMENT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department vacated the plea and waiver of indictment because the approximate of the offense was not included in the waiver:

… [D]efendant contends that her waiver of indictment is jurisdictionally defective because it did not contain the “approximate time” of the offense (CPL 195.20). We agree. A jurisdictionally valid waiver of indictment must contain, inter alia, the “approximate time” of each offense charged in the superior court information (SCI) … . “The law demands strict and literal compliance with the constitutional and statutory framework for waiving indictment” … . ” [S]ubstantial compliance [with CPL 195.20] will not be tolerated’ ” … because “compliance with [its] literal terms . . . is the sine qua non of the voluntariness of an indictment waiver” … . Here, as the People correctly concede, the waiver of indictment does not contain the approximate time of the offense … . Moreover, we note that this is not a case ” where the time of the offense is unknown or, perhaps, unknowable’ so as to excuse the absence of such information” … . People v Kerce, 2019 NY Slip Op 08310, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

,

FAILURE TO MENTION RESTITUTION IN DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE REQUIRES VACATION OF THE SENTENCE; DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT AND THE CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT MUST BE REMEDIED UPON RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department vacated defendant’s sentence because the sentencing court did not mention restitution as part of the sentence in defendant’s presence. The error survives a lack of preservation and a waiver of appeal. The Fourth Department noted that any discrepancy between the restitution amount in the plea agreement and the amount in the confession of judgment must be remedied upon resentencing:

… [D]efendant contends, and the People concede, that his confession of judgment with respect to restitution must be voided because the amount thereof differs from the amount of restitution contemplated by the plea bargain. Although not raised by the parties, we conclude that defendant’s sentence must be vacated in its entirety because County Court failed to pronounce the sentence of restitution in open court … .

“CPL 380.20 and 380.40 (1) collectively require that courts must pronounce sentence in every case where a conviction is entered’ and that—subject to limited exceptions not relevant here— [t]he defendant must be personally present at the time sentence is pronounced’ ” … . Restitution is a component of the sentence to which CPL 380.20 and CPL 380.40 (1) apply … . The requirements of CPL 380.20 and CPL 380.40 (1) are “unyielding” … , and their violation may be addressed on direct appeal notwithstanding a valid waiver of the right to appeal or the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for appellate review … . 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 … . People v Cleveland, 2019 NY Slip Op 08308, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; DEFENSE COUNSEL PROBABLY COULD HAVE WORKED OUT A PLEA TO AN OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT MANDATE DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel because there was a reasonable possibility a plea to something less than an aggravated felony could have been worked, with no mandatory deportation consequences:

At the hearing, defense counsel candidly admitted that he did not know, at the time of defendant’s plea, what an aggravated felony was, and that he mistakenly believed that defendant’s prior youthful offender adjudication, which resulted in a violation of probation charge that was disposed of at the same time as the instant plea, already rendered him deportable. However, New York YO adjudications are not considered criminal convictions for purposes of immigration law … . …

Accordingly, he did not attempt to obtain a sentence of less than one year on the third-degree conviction, which would have prevented it from being an aggravated felony, subjecting defendant, who is in removal proceedings, to mandatory deportation … . Counsel admitted that he had no strategic reason for not doing so; he simply did not know that defendant’s negotiated sentence of one to three years rendered robbery in the third degree an aggravated felony, or that defendant’s youthful offender adjudication did not render him deportable. People v Richards, 2019 NY Slip Op 08268, First Dept 11-14-19

 

,

A JUROR’S ATTEMPT TO DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP WITH A JAILED COOPERATING PROSECUTION WITNESS DURING DELIBERATIONS EXHIBITED ACTUAL AND IMPLIED BIAS REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS IS NOT APPLICABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined that a juror who attempted to develop a relationship with a jailed cooperating prosecution witness during deliberations exhibited actual and implied bias, thereby depriving defendant of a fair trial. Although the juror and the witness were not able to speak to each other during deliberations, there was a missed call. After the trial the juror developed a serious relationship with the witness through letters and phone calls and expressed a desire to marry the witness. The First Department noted that a harmless error analysis was not appropriate:

Juror misconduct includes both “actual bias” and “implied bias.” Despite its name, “actual” bias merely requires proof of “a state of mind” that is “likely” to preclude a juror from rendering an impartial verdict … . Under CPL 270.20(1)(b), “[a]ctual bias. . . is not limited . . . to situations where a prospective juror has formed an opinion as to the defendant’s guilt” … . It may be demonstrated where a prospective juror’s conduct indicates her inability to follow the court’s instructions.

“Implied bias” exists where a juror “bears some … relationship to any such person [defendant, witness, prosecution] of such nature that it is likely to preclude [the juror] from rendering an impartial verdict” (CPL 270.20[1][c] … ). “[T]he frequency of contact and nature of the parties’ relationship are to be considered in determining whether disqualification is necessary” … .

Implied bias “requires automatic exclusion from jury service regardless of whether the prospective juror declares that the relationship will not affect [his or] her ability to be fair and impartial” … .

Here, there was both actual and implied bias. The misconduct by Juror No. 6 was willful and blatant – the juror was admittedly attracted to the witness, a cooperating witness testifying on behalf of the People, and sought to develop a relationship with him while jury deliberations were still underway – even though she knew this was not permitted. The juror knew during deliberations that the witness had tried to call her back, suggesting that the interest was mutual, and the juror is now in a very serious relationship with the witness and seeks to marry him. Although the juror denied that her feelings about the witness affected her thinking about defendant, she was at least arguably more likely to credit his testimony and could subconsciously have sought to aide the side with which the witness was aligned … . People v McGregor, 2019 NY Slip Op 08283, First Dept 11-14-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT THE SENTENCE WOULD INCLUDE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, ALTHOUGH HE WAS INFORMED THE SENTENCE PROMISE WAS CONDITIONED UPON NO FURTHER ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED TWICE BEFORE SENTENCING AND AN ENHANCED SENTENCE, INCLUDING POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, WAS IMPOSED; PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY; ERROR APPEALABLE DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined that the plea was not voluntary because defendant was not informed that the sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision. At the time of the plea, defendant was told the 1 – 3 1/2 year sentence promise was conditioned upon no additional arrests. Defendant was arrested twice before sentencing. The court imposed an enhanced sentence which included a period of postrelease supervision which was not mentioned at the time of the plea. The error was appealable despite the lack of preservation:

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant was not required to preserve for appellate review his current claim that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered based on the County Court’s failure to mention the postrelease supervision component of his sentence at the plea proceeding, since he had no knowledge of, or opportunity to challenge, that portion of his sentence prior to its imposition … . …

… [T]he record reflects that the defendant was not made aware at the time he entered his plea that the terms of his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision … , nor did he have a sufficient opportunity to move to withdraw his plea on that basis before the court imposed sentence … . Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, the plea of guilty vacated … . People v Walton, 2019 NY Slip Op 08230, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, ,

BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE FIRST DEGREE IS NOT A REGISTERABLE OFFENSE UNDER SORA; A SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION IS APPEALABLE WHEN THE ERROR IS NOT PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice LaSalle, determined that burglary as a sexually motivated felony first degree (Penal Law 140.30[2]) is not a registerable offense under SORA, the result of an apparently unintended omission from the Correction Law. Defendant had attempted to rape the victim after breaking into her house. The court noted that a sex offender classification is appealable even when the alleged error is not preserved:

… [W]hen looking first at the statutory text of Correction Law § 168-a(2)(a), we find that the language employed is clear and unambiguous. As written, subparagraph (iii) of section 168-a(2)(a) specifically defines a sex offense as “a conviction of or a conviction for an attempt to commit any provisions of the foregoing sections committed or attempted . . . as a sexually motivated felony defined in section 130.91 of such law.” Thus, as the defendant contends, according to the language of the statute as amended, burglary in the first degree as a sexually motivated felony is not a registerable sex offense under SORA. While this may not have been the intent of the Legislature, the omission of a critical grammatical signpost or a parenthetical number preceding “as a sexually motivated felony” clearly limits the qualifying sexually motivated felony offenses only to those enumerated in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) … . “The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius is applied in the construction of the statutes, so that where a law expressly describes a particular act, thing or person to which it shall apply,  an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded” … . People v Buyund, 2019 NY Slip Op 08207, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

,

SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT WAS BASED UPON AN ANONYMOUS TIP, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the relevant convictions, determined the police officer effectively seized defendant by blocking defendant’s car based upon an anonymous tip. The evidence seized from the car should have been suppressed:

The conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree arises from a police encounter during which an officer received information from an anonymous 911 call that drugs were being sold out of a vehicle. The officer arrived on the scene and observed a legally parked vehicle matching the description given by the anonymous caller and further observed defendant in a fully reclined position in the driver’s seat. The officer parked his patrol car alongside defendant’s vehicle in such a manner as to prevent defendant from driving away and, as the People stipulated in their post-hearing memorandum, the officer thereby effectively seized the vehicle. We agree with defendant that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the initial seizure, and thus County Court erred in refusing to suppress both the tangible property seized, i.e., the weapon and marihuana found in the vehicle, and the statements defendant made to the police at the time of his arrest … . Based on the anonymous tip and defendant’s otherwise innocuous behavior … , the officer had, at most, a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” which permitted him to approach the vehicle and make a common-law inquiry of its occupants ,,, . The officer did not make any “confirmatory observations” of the criminal behavior reported by the 911 caller … and therefore did not have “a reasonable suspicion that [defendant] was involved in a felony or misdemeanor” to justify the seizure … . People v Williams, 2019 NY Slip Op 08048, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT IS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF EACH OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the waiver of indictment was jurisdictionally defective for failure state the approximate time of each offense:

A jurisdictionally valid waiver of indictment must contain, inter alia, the “approximate time” of each offense charged in the superior court information (SCI) … . That requirement is strictly enforced … . ” [S]ubstantial compliance will not be tolerated’ ” … . Here, the waiver of indictment does not contain the approximate time of the offense … . Inasmuch as the SCI also does not contain that information, we need not consider whether to adopt the so-called “single document” rule … . We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea and waiver of indictment, and dismiss the SCI … . People v Denis, 2019 NY Slip Op 08047, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

, ,

ALLOWING LOSS PREVENTION OFFICERS TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO MAY HAVE BEEN ERROR BUT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defense counsel’s failure to object to testimony of loss prevention officers identifying defendant in a surveillance video was not demonstrated to amount to ineffective assistance:

Although we agree with defendant that there is no basis in the record to conclude that the loss prevention officers who gave testimony identifying defendant as an individual depicted in the surveillance video were more likely to correctly identify defendant from the video than the jury … , we further conclude that defendant failed to “demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s alleged shortcoming[]” in failing to object to the admission of that testimony … . People v Hines, 2019 NY Slip Op 08032, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHAT SHOULD BE REDACTED FROM THE PRESENTENCE REPORT BUT IS NOT ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant in this manslaughter case was entitled to a hearing to determine what information should be redacted from the presentence report. However she was not entitled to resentencing:

Defendant … contends that this matter should be remitted for a conference or summary hearing to determine what information should be redacted from the presentence report. We agree, and we note that the People do not oppose remittal for that purpose. The record establishes that defendant sent a letter to County Court objecting to certain portions of the report, including references to her failure to cooperate with law enforcement and to her invocation of her right to counsel. At sentencing, the court acknowledged the objections and indicated that it agreed with some, but not all, of them. The court, however, failed to articulate which portions should be redacted. Accordingly, because “defendant was not properly afforded an opportunity to challenge the contents of the presentence report” … , we hold the case and remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings in accordance with our decision.

To the extent that defendant contends that she is entitled to be resentenced based on the alleged errors in the presentence report, we reject that contention inasmuch as there is no indication that the court relied on the alleged improper information contained in the report in sentencing her … . People v Ferguson, 2019 NY Slip Op 08016, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

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