You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED DURING A WARRANTLESS PAROLE SEARCH AT A TIME WHEN DEFENDANT’S POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) HAD BEEN IMPOSED ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; BECAUSE THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT OF JUDICIAL IMPOSITION OF PRS IS NOW CLEAR, SUPPRESSING THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE NO DETERRENT EFFECT AND IS NOT THEREFORE NECESSARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the ammunition seized during a warrantless parole search of defendant’s residence, and which was connected to a shooting, was not subject to suppression. At the time of the search, defendant’s post release supervision (PRS) had been imposed administratively and not by a judge–a procedure which has since been rendered invalid by statute. The Fourth Department held that, under these facts, the exclusionary rule, which usually requires suppression of the fruits of a warrantless search, would have no deterrent effect and need not be applied:

… [T]he improper conduct sought to be deterred by application of the exclusionary rule in this case is the unauthorized administrative imposition of PRS by a state entity rather than a sentencing judge. In that regard, defendant contends that the state criminal justice system disregarded the Second Circuit’s decision in Earley v Murray (451 F3d 71 [2d Cir 2006]), which held that the administrative imposition of PRS is unconstitutional … , and he contends that application of the exclusionary rule here is necessary to deter similar “misconduct” in the future. We reject that contention.

First, when the parole search took place, in 2007, the issue whether it is proper for the state to administratively impose PRS had not yet been settled … . Second, and more importantly, it is now settled as a matter of state statutory law that only a court may lawfully pronounce a term of PRS as a component of a sentence … and, consequently, all the relevant government actors are now well aware of the law. Under the circumstances, the deterrent effect of applying the exclusionary rule is marginal or nonexistent … . People v Lloyd, 2019 NY Slip Op 05855, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REDUCED FROM 12 TO FIVE YEARS BASED UPON THE PLEA OFFERS, THE LACK OF PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS, DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, AND THE VICTIMS’ OPPOSITION TO INCARCERATION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department reduced defendant’s sentence from 12 to five years, taking into account the plea offers of probation only and five years, the lack of any prior felony convictions, her mental health problems, and the victims’ opposition to incarceration:

… [T]he 12-year term of incarceration imposed on the count of burglary in the first degree is unduly harsh and severe. Before indictment, defendant was offered the opportunity to plead to a charge for which probation was a sentencing option. After indictment, she was offered the opportunity to plead guilty to the charges with a sentence promise of five years. At the time of the latter offer, all of the relevant facts were known to the court, including those related to defendant’s history of mental illness. The victims of the offenses were defendant’s parents, and they opposed a lengthy prison sentence, contending that she needed treatment not incarceration. Indeed, defendant’s mother stated at sentencing that her daughter needed mental health treatment and that “jail [was] not the answer.”

Moreover, all of defendant’s prior convictions, none of which were felonies, were committed within three years of these offenses and only after defendant began to suffer from significant mental health issues. Under the circumstances of this case, where no new facts were set forth during the nonjury trial and the victims were opposed to incarceration, we conclude that the sentence on the burglary count should be reduced to a determinate term of incarceration of five years … . People v Mccoy, 2019 NY Slip Op 05851, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

THE VICTIM IN THIS KIDNAPPING CASE ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE COULD GO WITH HIM TO FLORIDA; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED THAT THE INTENT TO VIOLATE OR ABUSE THE VICTIM MUST HAVE EXISTED FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS, A NEW TRIAL WAS ORDERED ON THAT GROUND; BOTH THE CONCURRENCE AND THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE HAD BEEN NO RESTRAINT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KIDNAPPING STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a concurrence and a dissent, determined the jury instruction on the intent element of kidnapping was wrong requiring reversal. Defendant, who was over 21, drove to Florida with the victim, who was 14, and had sex with her during the trip. The victim asked defendant if she could come with him and snuck out of the house without her mother’s knowledge. The concurrence argued the restraint element of kidnapping was not proven, but agreed with the majority because that element had been conceded by the defense. The dissent would have reversed and dismissed the indictment, finding the conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he weight of the evidence supports a determination that defendant did not innocently acquiesce to the mere request of a 14-year-old acquaintance to drive her to Florida, but rather took advantage of a 14-year-old child’s age and inexperience, by driving the victim across multiple state lines, away from her family, in order to engage in an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. * * *

We interpret the statute to mean that kidnapping in the first degree requires that a defendant both restrain a victim for more than 12 hours and possess, for more than 12 hours during the period of restraint, the intent to violate or abuse the victim sexually. Here, however, the court instructed the jury that “intent does not require advanced planning, nor is it necessary that the intent be in the person’s mind for any particular period of time.” … [W]e conclude that the instruction was erroneous inasmuch as it permitted the jury to find that the element of intent pursuant to section 135.25 (2) (a) had been established even if the jury did not find that the intent existed for more than 12 hours during a period of over 12 hours of restraint.  * * *

FROM THE DISSENT: Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that defendant either “secreted” or “held” the victim in his car, or that he intended to prevent her “liberation.” She was there voluntarily and of her own accord, which is the very antithesis of being “secreted” or “held” somewhere. People v Vail, 2019 NY Slip Op 05848, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

HANDGUN FOUND IN A COAT IN A CLOSET BY A PAROLE OFFICER WITH A PAROLE ABSCONDER WARRANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the suppression court in an appeal by the People, determined the handgun found during a search of defendant’s bedroom pursuant to a parole warrant should not have been suppressed. The parole officer testified she was searching a closet to see if defendant was hiding there when she felt a handgun in the pocket of a jacket she had seen defendant wearing:

In Huntley, the Court of Appeals “relied on the dual nature of a parole officer’s duties and a parolee’s reduced expectation of privacy to hold that a parolee’s constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a parole officer conducts a warrantless search that is rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duties” (… see Huntley, 43 NY2d at 179, 181 …). “It would not be enough necessarily that there was some rational connection; the particular conduct must also have been substantially related to the performance of duty in the particular circumstances” … .

Applying this standard, we find that Parole Officer Williams, whose testimony the hearing court credited, acted lawfully in retrieving the firearm from defendant’s jacket pocket. While executing a valid parole warrant, and in the course of searching for defendant pursuant to that warrant, Williams inadvertently felt an object, that both she and her supervisor believed to be a gun, in the jacket pocket. Because parolees are not permitted to possess firearms, Williams’s discovery meant that defendant was in further violation of the conditions of his supervised release. Thus, the minimally invasive step of retrieving the gun from the pocket was “rationally and reasonably related to the performance of [her] duty as [defendant’s] parole officer” … . People v Jennings, 2019 NY Slip Op 05838, First Dept 7-30-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS ENTERED VOLUNTARILY AND WHETHER HE RECEIVED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant presented DNA evidence of a genetic inability to metabolize certain medications he was taking to address his mental health. In addition, defendant raised issues concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel, who was aware of defendant’s mental health issues, had sent a letter to the court requesting to withdraw as counsel immediately after defendant told the court he felt coerced into pleading guilty. Three days later defendant entered a guilty plea saying he was not coerced. The court noted that the DNA evidence submitted by the defendant was not the kind of DNA evidence (i.e., demonstrating innocence) which can be used as the basis of a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction:

Given the evidence of defendant’s metabolic deficiency and the ongoing efforts to chemically treat his mental health issues before and after his guilty plea, further development of the record is required to determine whether defendant’s mental capacity was impaired at the time of his plea and, if so, whether he was able to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently plead guilty to attempted murder in the second degree … . …

… [D]efense counsel stated to defendant on multiple occasions that he had “absolutely no defense” to the charged crimes. In our view, defendant’s submissions demonstrate the need for further development of the record regarding off-the-record conversations that took place between defendant and defense counsel regarding defendant’s case and possible defenses, … so as to discern whether defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived any potential defenses, including an involuntary intoxication defense or the defense of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect … .

… [D]efense counsel stated, among other things, that, should defendant refuse to plead guilty, he would no longer agree to represent defendant and, in attempting to dissuade defendant from proceeding to trial, invoked the potential disgrace to his family. People v Adamo, 2019 NY Slip Op 05813, Third Dept 7-25-19

 

,

CONVICTIONS OF INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF AGGRAVATED UNLICENSED OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE FIRST DEGREE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined vacated defendant’s conviction of two inclusory concurrent counts of the court alleging aggravated operation of a operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree:

… [T]he counts alleging driving while intoxicated as a felony in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree were inclusory concurrent counts of the count alleging aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (see CPL 300.30[4]; 300.40[3][b]; Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 511[2][a][ii]; [3][a][i]; 1192). Accordingly, the defendant’s convictions of driving while intoxicated as a felony in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3), and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree and the sentences imposed thereon must be vacated, and those counts of the indictment dismissed. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s contention that the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee must be reduced is more appropriately raised before the Supreme Court and, accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to consider this issue … . People v Delcid, 2019 NY Slip Op 05788, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S AGGRAVATED CRUELTY TO ANIMALS CONVICTION AFFIRMED; JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIES ONLY TO PERSONS, NOT ANIMALS; THE PRESENTENCE INTERVIEW AT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT IS NOT A CRITICAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING REQUIRING THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department affirmed defendant’s conviction of aggravated cruelty to animals (Agriculture and Markets Law 353-a) noting that the justification defense (on which the jury was instructed) applies only to persons, not animals. The defendant unsuccessfully argued the presentence report should have been ignored because his attorney was not present during the interview with the Probation Department:

Defendant contends that the court should have disregarded the report in its entirety and ordered a new one because the Probation Department did not abide by counsel’s request to be present for the presentence interview. “New York’s right to counsel applies to every critical stage of the criminal proceeding” … . However, in light of the nonadversarial nature of a routine presentence interview by a probation officer, courts have held that such an interview does not constitute a critical stage of the proceedings … . Therefore, defendant did not have a right to have counsel present during that interview. In any event, County Court granted defendant’s request to strike the portion of the report containing defendant’s statement related to this crime. People v Brinkley, 2019 NY Slip Op 05728, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

,

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE BASED UPON THE SALE OF HEROIN WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED THE VICTIM’S DEATH; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE MANSLAUGHTER COUNT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, over a dissent, determined the evidence of manslaughter presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient. Defendant allegedly provided very strong heroin to the victim, causing victim’s death:

“In the context of grand jury proceedings, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt” … . Thus, “if the [People have] established a prima facie case, the evidence is legally sufficient even though its quality or weight may be so dubious as to preclude indictment or conviction pursuant to other requirements” … . …

… [I]n order to find a defendant guilty of manslaughter in the second degree, the People are required to show that he or she “recklessly cause[d] the death of  another person” (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]). “A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance . . . when he [or she] is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists” … . …

Given defendant’s knowledge of the potency of the drugs that he was distributing and their potential lethality, it is evident that the nature of the risk involved was of such degree “that defendant’s failure to perceive it constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” and that his actions were a sufficiently direct cause of the victim’s death for him to face the judgment of a jury … . People v Gaworecki, 2019 NY Slip Op 05725, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF AN APPEAL FROM A JURY VERDICT (AS OPPOSED TO A GUILTY PLEA) WAS VALID (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, determined a defendant may validly waive an appeal from a jury verdict:

… “[A] defendant may waive his or her right to appeal from a jury verdict” … . The People set forth the terms of the postverdict agreement on the record, including that defendant would waive his right to appeal for a sentencing commitment of time served. County Court then engaged in a thorough colloquy with defendant, during which defendant acknowledged that he had discussed the agreement with counsel to his satisfaction and understood it. County Court explained the right to appeal from the conviction and eventual sentence, distinguished it from the trial rights that defendant had exercised and made clear that defendant was being asked to give it up as part of the agreement. Defendant confirmed that he understood all of this and orally waived his right to appeal. He further executed a written waiver that was handed up prior to sentencing, a document that included assurances that it had been signed by defendant in open court after consulting with defense counsel. We are satisfied from the foregoing that, notwithstanding isolated uses of language more appropriate for a waiver executed as part of a plea agreement, defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal … . People v Shanks, 2019 NY Slip Op 05724, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER FOR ONE CHARGE DID NOT REQUIRE A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION FOR AN UNRELATED CHARGE, EVEN THOUGH BOTH CHARGES WERE PART OF A JOINT PLEA AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the youthful offender adjudication for one charge did not require the court to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender for an unrelated charge, even though both charges were subject to a joint plea agreement:

Defendant’s primary contention is that County Court, having adjudicated him as a youthful offender on the unrelated charge, was also required to adjudicate him a youthful offender on the burglary charge. This is incorrect. Defendant relies upon CPL 720.20 (2), which provides, as relevant here, that, “[w]here an eligible youth is convicted of two or more crimes . . . set forth in two or more accusatory instruments consolidated for trial purposes, the court must not find [the youth] a youthful offender with respect to any such conviction . . . unless it finds him a youthful offender with respect to all such convictions” … . Contrary to defendant’s erroneous supposition, the accusatory instruments to which he pleaded guilty, i.e., the superior court informations charging him with burglary and the unrelated crime, were never “consolidated for trial purposes” so as to require a youthful offender adjudication on both or neither of the convictions (CPL 720.20 [2] …). Although both accusatory instruments were ultimately resolved under a joint agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to two separate superior court informations, and the record does not reflect that either party moved to consolidate them, that they were ordered joined for trial or, indeed, that they could have been properly joined (see CPL 200.20 [2], [4]; see also CPL 200.15). Consequently, “the sentencing court was authorized in its discretion to determine that the defendant was a youthful offender with respect to either or both convictions”… , and was not compelled to confer youthful offender status at sentencing on the burglary conviction. People v Turner, 2019 NY Slip Op 05718, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

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