You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL WHEN HE PLED GUILTY IN 2007 THAT IF HE STAYED OUT OF TROUBLE WHILE ON PROBATION HE WOULD NOT BE DEPORTED, HOWEVER DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE GONE TO TRIAL, INCLUDING HIS UNDISPUTED STRONG DESIRE TO STAY IN THE US, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Martinez) was entitled to a hearing on his CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his 2007 judgment of conviction. At the time defendant pled guilty the court warned him there could be immigration consequences, but defense counsel told him he wouldn’t have to worry about deportation if he stayed out of trouble while on probation. In fact, however, deportation was mandatory. Supreme Court denied the motion based in part on defendant’s motivation for it, i.e., the expansion of his taxi business in Massachusetts. The First Department noted that plaintiff’s current motivation for the motion to vacate is irrelevant. The matter was sent back for a hearing in front of a different judge:

In the context of a guilty plea, the ultimate question of prejudice is whether there was a reasonable probability that a reasonable person in a defendant’s circumstances would have gone to trial if given constitutionally adequate advice … . A defendant must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational … . In that regard, appropriate factors to be weighed include, among others, evidence of defendant’s incentive, at the time of his plea, to remain in the United States rather than his native country; his respective family and employment ties at the time of his plea, to the United States, as compared to his country of origin; the strength of the People’s case; and defendant’s sentencing exposure … . In answering the prejudice question, judges should be cognizant that a noncitizen defendant confronts a very different calculus than confronts a United States citizen … . For a noncitizen defendant, “preserving [his] right to remain in the United States may be more important to [him] than any jail sentence”… . Thus, a determination of whether it would be rational for a defendant to reject a plea offer “must take into account the particular circumstances informing the defendant’s desire to remain in the United States” … .

Significantly, on the record before this Court, there is reason to believe that Martinez would have given paramount importance to avoiding deportation, if he had known that it was more than a mere possibility, but was an unavoidable consequence of his plea to an aggravated felony. Indeed, evidence regarding Martinez’s background completely supports his current assertion that his main focus has been always to remain in the United States. This much is undisputed: his long history in the United States, his efforts to become a citizen, his family circumstances, and his gainful employment in Massachusetts, all signal his strong connection to, and desire to remain in, the United States … . People v Martinez, 2020 NY Slip Op 00252, First Dept 1-14-20

 

DEFENDANT’S DISCARDING A BAG OF MARIJUANA AS HE WAS BEING PURSUED BY POLICE FOR AN OPEN-CONTAINER VIOLATION CONSTITUTED ATTEMPTED TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that defendant’s discarding a bag of marijuana as he was being pursued by a police officer for violating the city’s open-container law constituted attempted tampering with physical evidence, not tampering with physical evidence:

Here, the charge of tampering with physical evidence was based on the defendant’s act of discarding the plastic bag containing marijuana as he was being pursued by Officer Scuadroni for violating the City’s open-container law. Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s act of discarding the bag did not constitute an act of concealment within the meaning of Penal Law § 215.40(2). Nevertheless, since the defendant “engage[d] in conduct that tends to effect, and comes dangerously near to accomplishing, an act of concealment intended to suppress the physical evidence” … , there is legally sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of attempted tampering with physical evidence (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 215.40[2 …). Accordingly, we reduce the defendant’s conviction of tampering with physical evidence to attempted tampering with physical evidence … . People v Zachary, 2020 NY Slip Op 00165, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

SENTENCE DEEMED HARSH AND EXCESSIVE; REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reduced the defendant’s sentence, noting it was defendant’s first conviction, her strong family and community ties, her long employment history and her mental health history. “The defendant was convicted of two counts each of rape in the third degree, criminal sexual act in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child arising out of two separate incidents wherein the defendant, who was a paraprofessional at a school which the 16½-year-old victim attended, took the victim to a hotel and had sexual intercourse and oral sex with him:”

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment … convicting her of rape in the third degree (two counts), criminal sexual act in the third degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and sentencing her to determinate terms of imprisonment of 3 years on each of the counts of rape in the third degree (counts 1 and 4) and criminal sexual act in the third degree (counts 2 and 5), to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of 10 years, and a determinate term of imprisonment of 1 year on each of the counts of endangering the welfare of a child (counts 3 and 6), with the sentences imposed on counts 1, 2, and 3 to run concurrently with each other, and the sentences imposed on counts 4, 5, and 6 to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the sentences imposed on counts 1, 2, and 3. * * *

The sentence imposed, which is at the upper end of the legal sentencing range, is harsh and excessive … . Accordingly, exercising our interest of justice jurisdiction, we modify the sentence to the extent indicated herein … . People v Thompson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00164, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH AN ALTERNATE; NO SHOWING JUROR WAS ‘UNAVAILABLE’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPL 270.35; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge should not have discharged a juror and replaced her with an alternate after the proof had closed and before summations. The juror was not “unavailable” within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 270.35:

… [A]fter both sides had rested but before summations, the Supreme Court, over the defendant’s objection, excused juror No. 10 and replaced her with an alternate on the basis that juror No. 10 had to travel to Maryland for an evening work obligation the next day, which was a Friday. The day after the alternate was substituted, the jury found the defendant guilty of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. …

… [T]he defendant’s statutory and constitutional rights were violated when, over the defendant’s objection, the court excused Juror No. 10 and substituted an alternate juror. The record does not demonstrate that Juror No. 10 was unavailable as that term is used in CPL 270.35 … . Juror No. 10’s work obligation did not render her unavailable for jury service, as her own convenience or potential financial hardship are insufficient to render her unavailable under CPL 270.35 … . People v Alleyne, 2020 NY Slip Op 00154, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE IMPROPERLY RELIED ON CPL 440.30 (d) WHICH ONLY APPLIES IF THE MOTION IS BASED SOLELY ON AN ALLEGATION BY THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his judgment of conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. There was a question of fact whether defense counsel was aware he could call an expert to testify defendant, who had ingested drugs, did not have the required mental state (depraved indifference). The First Department noted Supreme Court may have improperly relied on Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.30 (d) which applies only if the motion is based solely on an allegation by the defendant (not the case here):

While the motion court had a sound basis for its conclusion that there was “no reasonable possibility” that defendant’s trial counsel “was unaware that he could call an expert to testify about the defendant’s state of mind,” we find that this was not an adequate basis for denying the motion without a hearing in these circumstances. First, to the extent the court may have been relying on CPL 440.30(d), that section permits summary denial when “there is no reasonable possibility that such an allegation is true,” but it applies only when the allegation “is made solely by the defendant.” That is not the case here, where the allegation at issue regarding trial counsel’s statements was made by defendant’s motion counsel based on his own knowledge.

Nor do we believe that this is a case such as People v Samandarov (13 NY3d 433 [2009]), where the lack of merit of a CPL 440.10 motion could be determined on the parties’ submissions, despite it being “theoretically possible that a hearing could show otherwise” (id. at 440). Here, while the court’s perception may well be borne out, there are issues of fact sufficient to warrant a hearing … . People v Martin, 2020 NY Slip Op 00067, First Dept 1-7-20

 

,

THE INDICTMENT CHARGING PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT ALLEGED DEFENDANT POSSESSED LESS THAN 25 GRAMS OF MARIJUANA WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF ‘DANGEROUS CONTRABAND,” AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the indictment, charging defendant with promoting prison contraband in the first degree was jurisdictionally defective because it alleged possession of less that 25 grams of marijuana:

Defendant asserts that the indictment is jurisdictionally defective based on the Court of Appeals’ decision in People v Finley (10 NY3d 647 [2003]). In that case, the Court held that the possession of a small amount of marihuana, specifically less than 25 grams, did not, absent aggravating circumstances, constitute dangerous contraband within the meaning of Penal Law §§ 205.00 (4) and 205.25 as is necessary to support the charge of promoting prison contraband in the first degree … . Defendant contends that there is no valid basis in the indictment for this charge because he possessed less than 25 grams of marihuana. The People concede that this is a jurisdictional defect warranting reversal of the judgment of conviction. In addition, defendant requests that the indictment be dismissed in its entirety, and the People consent to such relief given that defendant’s guilty plea satisfied both charges contained therein. Accordingly, based upon our review of the record, the case law and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the judgment of conviction must be reversed, thereby vacating the plea and sentence, and that the indictment must be dismissed in its entirety. People v Lawrence, 2020 NY Slip Op 00004, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER RE THE DEFENDANT’S RISK ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA); THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Count Court had not issued a written order with respect to the defendant’s risk assessment under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) and therefor the appeal was not properly before the court:

Following a hearing at which the People advocated for an upward departure, County Court granted the request and classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender with a sexually violent offender designation. Defendant appeals.

It is a statutory requirement that County Court “render an order setting forth its determinations and findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n [3] … ). That written order then must be “entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable” (CPLR 2220 [a] …).

Although the record before us contains a decision of County Court that sets forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court did not issue a written order and the risk assessment instrument does not contain the “so ordered” language so as to constitute an appealable order. Absent any order by the court, this appeal is not properly before us and must be dismissed … . People v Johnson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00006, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE INFORMED AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA TO A SEX OFFENSE THAT HE OR SHE MAY BE SUBJECT TO A MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 CIVIL ACTION AS THE RELEASE DATE APPROACHES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant, a sex offender who was found to suffer from a mental abnormality after Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 trial, was not entitled specific performance of his plea agreement, which made no mention of the of potential Mental Hygiene Law proceedings:

Respondent next challenges Supreme Court’s denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss the petition inasmuch as his 1997 plea agreement is a legal and binding contract — one that entitled him to specific performance. Proceedings pursuant to the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act “are expansive civil proceedings, which are entirely separate from and independent of the original criminal action” … . Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that trial courts are required to advise defendants who plead guilty regarding the direct consequences of such plea, but they have no obligation to iterate every collateral consequence of the conviction” … . As relevant here, “the potential for either civil confinement or supervision pursuant to [the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act] is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea and, therefore, the current state of the law does not require that defendants be informed of it prior to entering a plea of guilty” … . As such, we discern no error in Supreme Court’s denial of respondent’s request for specific performance. Nor are we persuaded by respondent’s assertion that specific performance is appropriate because the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 litigation ensued following the expiration of his sentence, as the article 10 proceeding commenced upon the date that the petition was filed, prior to respondent’s release date … . Matter of State of New York v Robert G., 2020 NY Slip Op 00009, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, , , ,

PENSION OF POLICE OFFICER CONVICTED OF MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CAN, UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW, BE REACHED TO SATISFY A $1 MILLION JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY THE CRIME VICTIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Son of Sam Law trumped the CPLR, the Retirement and Social Security Law, and the Administrative Code of the City of New York with respect to the pension of a former NYC police officer who was convicted of murder and attempted murder and against whom plaintiff obtained a personal injury judgment of more than $1 million:

“Executive Law § 632-a sets forth a statutory scheme intended to improve the ability of crime victims to obtain full and just compensation from the person(s) convicted of the crime by allowing crime victims or their representatives to sue the convicted criminals who harmed them when the criminals receive substantial sums of money from virtually any source and protecting those funds while litigation is pending” … . … [I]n 2001, the Legislature amended the [Son of Sam] law to allow a crime victim to seek recovery from “funds of a convicted person,” which includes “all funds and property received from any source by a person convicted of a specified crime,” but specifically excludes child support and earned income (Education Law § 632-a [1] [c]). * * *

This Court has found … that CPLR 5205 (c) is superseded by the Son of Sam Law … . Defendant’s assertions that Retirement and Social Security Law § 110 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 13-264 protect his pension from assignment to satisfy plaintiff’s money judgment are similarly without merit due to the broad reach of the Son of Sam Law … . Prindle v Guzy, 2020 NY Slip Op 00011, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

,

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the hearing and trial courts should have allowed cross-examination of a police officer about a lawsuit naming the officer:

Both the hearing and trial courts erred in denying defendant’s request to cross-examine a police officer regarding allegations of misconduct in a civil lawsuit in which it was claimed, among other things, that this particular officer arrested the plaintiff without suspicion of criminality and lodged false charges against him … . The civil complaint contained specific allegations of falsification by this officer that bore on his credibility at both the hearing and trial. At each proceeding, this officer was the only witness for the People. People v Burgess, 2019 NY Slip Op 09364, First Dept 12-26-19

 

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