You are here: / Criminal Law

WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined that defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated because the waiver of indictment and superior court information were defective. The time of the offense was not indicated:

We agree with defendant’s contention that, because there was not strict compliance with the statutory mandates of CPL 195.20, his waiver of indictment is invalid, thereby requiring reversal of the judgment of conviction … . The plain language of CPL 195.20 requires that a waiver of indictment include the date and approximate time of the charged offense. Although the waiver of indictment and the SCI, when filed together, may be read as a single document in order to satisfy the requirements of the statute, here, neither the waiver of indictment nor the SCI properly indicate the time of the charged offense … . Moreover, this is not “a situation where the time of the offense is unknown or, perhaps, unknowable” so as to excuse the absence of such information … . People v Titus, 2019 NY Slip Op 02588, Second Dept 4-4-19

Because defendant’s admission to a violation of probation was induced by the explicit promise his sentence for the probation violation would run concurrently with the sentence for attempted burglary, which was reversed above, defendant’s plea to the probation violation was vacated as well.  People v Titus, 2019 NY Slip Op 02589, Third Dept 4-4-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT HAD SERVED HIS ENTIRE SENTENCE BY THE TIME THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED, THE IMPOSITION OF MORE PRISON TIME UPON HIS SUBSEQUENT PLEA TO THE ASSAULT SECOND CHARGE VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT REQUESTING TIME SERVED, BECAUSE THE ERROR AFFECTED THE VOLUNTARINESS OF DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA THE WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction and set aside the sentence should have been granted. The court noted that the waiver of appeal did not apply because the alleged error affected the voluntariness of the guilty plea. At the time defendant’s assault second conviction was overturned he had completed his sentence. When he subsequently pled guilty to the assault second charge more prison time was imposed. That violated the prohibition against double jeopardy (punished twice for the same offense). Defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing defendant must be sentenced to time served:

At the time of remittal, it was clear that, more than 15 years earlier, defendant had been sentenced to seven years in prison for his conviction of assault in the second degree, which was the maximum permissible sentence for a second violent felony offender convicted of that crime … . It was also clear that his assault conviction had been overturned on appeal. These facts and circumstances alone would have alerted a reasonably competent attorney to the possibility that any subsequent sentence that included additional prison time might violate the constitutional prohibition against multiple punishments and, by extension, prompted an inquiry into the amount of time that defendant had already served in prison on his 2001 assault conviction. It is evident from the record that defense counsel did not recognize or investigate the obvious potential double jeopardy concern at the time of remittal for, if she had, she would have determined — as the People concede — that defendant had already served the maximum permissible prison term for assault in the second degree and, therefore, could be sentenced only to time served … . People v Jones, 2019 NY Slip Op 02586, Third Dept 4-4-19

 

,

PROSECUTION FOR CONSPIRACY TO MURDER AFTER MURDER TRIAL RESULTED IN MANSLAUGHTER AND GANG ASSAULT CONVICTIONS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined prosecuting defendant for conspiracy to commit murder, after a trial for the murder resulted in a conviction for manslaughter and gang assault, did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy:

Defendant’s prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder, after a prior prosecution for the actual murder resulted in a trial conviction for manslaughter and gang assault, did not violate the federal or state double jeopardy prohibitions, because conspiracy is not the same offense, for double jeopardy purposes, as murder, manslaughter, or gang assault … . “The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not” (Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299, 304 [1932] [citations omitted]). Neither the fact that the evidence at the homicide trial would have also supported a conspiracy charge, nor the fact that defendant had been alleged to have acted in concert with other persons, has any relevance under the Blockburger test. People v Herrera, 2019 NY Slip Op 02631, First Dept 4-4-19

 

,

JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO BE CONVICTED ON A THEORY THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN THIS ANIMAL CRUELTY CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S HAVING COMPLETED HIS SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in the interest of justice, determined the jury instructions in this animal cruelty case allowed a conviction on a theory that was not included in the indictment. A new trial was ordered, despite defendant’s having served his sentence:

As the People essentially concede, the court’s jury charge constructively amended the indictment … . The indictment was limited to a theory that defendant personally mistreated his dog. However, the court read Agriculture & Markets Law § 353 to the jury almost in its entirety, including a provision that would allow the jury to convict defendant if he merely permitted another person to mistreat his dog. Unlike ordinary accessorial liability under Penal Law § 20.00, this theory of “permitting” is an entirely different way of committing the crime from personally mistreating the animal. This error was not harmless, because there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could have inferred that defendant took the blame for his dog’s condition to cover for his uncle, who lived with defendant and made inconsistent statements about whether he witnessed defendant beating the dog.

However, the fact that defendant has completed his sentence does not warrant dismissal of the indictment. That approach is suitable only in cases of “relatively minor crimes”  … , and this case involves “serious” allegations  …of abusing an animal. Accordingly, we remand for a new trial. People v Gentles, 2019 NY Slip Op 02623, First Dept 4-4-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED WHEN THE POLICE SEARCHED A BAG ON THE FLOOR NEAR HIM, THE KNIFE IN THE BAG SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, JUDGE PROPERLY PROCEEDED TO TRIAL WITHOUT A COMPETENCY EXAM ORDERED BY ANOTHER JUDGE AFTER DEFENDANT REFUSED TO BE EXAMINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the warrantless search of a bag next to defendant was not justified as a search of the “grabbable” area because defendant was handcuffed. Admitting the knife in evidence was harmless error, however. Another judge had ordered a sixth CPL article 730 competency exam, but, after the defendant refused to be examined, the trial judge properly commenced the trial without the ordered examination. The defendant had a long history of psychiatric problems, but the most recent exam deemed him competent:

In the circumstances presented, the court did not err when it determined that defendant’s trial would commence notwithstanding that a different judge had ordered a sixth CPL article 730 examination, which had not yet been conducted because the defendant refused to be examined … . The court acted within its discretion to decline to repeatedly issue force orders to compel defendant’s submission to the extant competency examination order. Furthermore, the court considered the long history of examinations in this case and its own observations of defendant over its prolonged history. We find nothing in People v Armlin (37 NY2d 167 [1975]) that prohibits a court from considering changed or extraordinary circumstances in denying a previously granted examination, particularly given defendant’s profound lack of cooperation and a recent examination finding him competent.

We find that the trial court should have suppressed the 12 inch knife recovered by the police during a warrantless search of defendant’s bag. Although at the time of the search the bag was on the floor within the “grabbable area” next to defendant, he was standing with his arms handcuffed behind his back … . These circumstances do not support a reasonable belief that the defendant could have either gained possession of a weapon or destroyed evidence located in the bag. Police did not show any exigency to justify the warrantless search of the bag … . People v Washington, 2019 NY Slip Op 02610, First Dept 4-4-19

 

GIVING A SECOND ALLEN CHARGE AND ALLOWING THE JURY TO CONTINUE DELIBERATING TO 5 OR 6 PM ON A FRIDAY, KNOWING THAT THREE JURORS HAD TRAVEL PLANS FOR MONDAY, DID NOT CONSTITUTE COERCING THE VERDICT, PROVIDING BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS WAS NOT IMPROPER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined (1) the trial judge’s giving two Allen charges and allowing the jury to continue deliberations to 5 or 6 pm, at the jury’s request, on a Friday, knowing that three jurors could not continue deliberating on Monday because of travel plans, did not constitute coercing a verdict, and (2) providing the jurors with both written and oral jury instructions, without objection, was not improper:

The substance of an Allen charge is not coercive if it is “appropriately balanced and inform[s] the jurors that they [do] not have to reach a verdict and that none of them should surrender a conscientiously held position in order to reach a unanimous verdict” … . Here, the trial court’s repeated Allen charge included an instruction that the jurors were to “make every possible effort to arrive at a just verdict,” thereby implicitly instructing the jurors that they were not required to reach a verdict if they did not all agree that the verdict was just. Further, the trial court advised the jury that it “was not asking any juror to violate his or her conscience or to abandon his or her best judgment.” …

Defendant … contends that the trial court coerced the verdict by acceding to the request made in Court Exhibit XIII for more time to deliberate on the day of the verdict without immediately addressing the scheduling conflicts set forth in the same jury note in which the request was made. … As the record reflects, the trial court construed Court Exhibit XIII as meaning that the jurors thought that they could quickly resolve any remaining differences among them and agree upon a verdict within hours that same day, and therefore permitted them to do so. Thus, there was no need for the court to address the traveling plans of some jurors for the following week because this did not appear to be a problem at the time. People v Muhammad, 2019 NY Slip Op 02609, First Dept 4-4-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA AND DID NOT HAVE A PRACTICAL ABILITY TO OBJECT, THEREFORE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL APPLIES, MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant was not informed of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea and therefore did not have the opportunity to move to withdraw his plea. Therefore a narrow exception to the preservation requirement applies and the matter was remitted to allow defendant to make the motion:

… [A] narrow exception to the preservation requirement exists “in rare cases where the defendant lacks a reasonable opportunity to object to a fundamental defect in the plea which is clear on the face of the record and to which the court’s attention should have been instantly drawn,’ such that the salutary purpose of the preservation rule is . . . not jeopardized'” … .

In this case, the exception applies. At the plea proceeding, the court merely asked defense counsel if he had discussed with the defendant the potential “immigration consequences” of pleading guilty. Defense counsel responded: “He is here on a Green Card. We have discussed the immigration consequences.” Furthermore, the People’s contention that the written appeal waiver form demonstrates that the defendant was aware of the possibility of deportation prior to the imposition of the sentence is without merit … . Inasmuch as the record does not demonstrate either that the Supreme Court mentioned, or that the defendant was otherwise aware of, the possibility of deportation, the defendant had “no practical ability” to object to the court’s statement or to otherwise tell the court, if he chose, that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known about the possibility of deportation … . People v Mohamed, 2019 NY Slip Op 02557, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

ANONYMOUS TIP ALLEGING SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR BY MEN WEARING HOODIES GOING IN AND OUT OF A U-HAUL TRUCK DID NOT JUSTIFY PULLING OVER A U-HAUL TRUCK DRIVEN BY A MAN WEARING A HOODIE, WEAPON FOUND IN THE TRUCK SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the anonymous tip that persons were acting suspicious going in and out of a U-Haul truck and that one of the persons was wearing a brown hoodie did not justify pulling over a U-Haul truck driven by a man wearing a brown hoodie. The weapon found in the truck after the traffic stop should have been suppressed:

… [T]he police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based only on the anonymous tip of men “suspiciously” going in and out of a U-Haul truck, because the tip was insufficient to create reasonable suspicion that the individuals described were engaging in criminal activity … . The characteristics described in the anonymous tip were readily observable, and the behavior of the individuals described in the tip was consistent with the ordinary use of a U-Haul truck, as the tipster failed to identify what made the behavior suspicious for burglary … . Additionally, the tip “lacked predictive information” and was uncorroborated by the officers, as the U-Haul truck was not at the reported location when the officers arrived … . Accordingly, the information that the police received from the anonymous informant, even coupled with the officers’ own observations, did not provide them with reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop … . People v Floyd, 2019 NY Slip Op 02546, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

ANGRY REMARK MADE TO PROBATION OFFICER DID NOT CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION, PROBATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s angry remark made to the probation officer (threatening to “blow her up”) was not a crime and therefore did not justify the revocation of probation and incarceration (defendant has served his sentence):

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree when “he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act” (Penal Law § 195.05). “The plain meaning of the statute and the accompanying commentary clearly demonstrate that the mens rea of this crime is an intent to frustrate a public servant in the performance of a specific function” … . Although the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the probation officer was at work, there was no evidence to show that the defendant attempted to prevent her from performing a specific function. The defendant’s angry outburst, without more, was insufficient to establish a violation of Penal Law § 195.05. Thus, the Supreme Court’s finding that the defendant violated a condition of his probation by failing to lead a law-abiding life is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … . People v Brooks, 2019 NY Slip Op 02539, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE ARRESTING OFFICER TO TESTIFY THAT DEFENDANT WAS DEPICTED IN THE VIDEOTAPE WHICH WAS BEING PLAYED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined it was (harmless) error to fail to sustain defense counsel’s objection to the arresting officer’s unprompted identification testimony that the defendant was depicted in the videotape that was being played:

The officer was not previously familiar with defendant, and there was no basis to conclude he was “more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the [videotape] than [was] the jury” … . However, this isolated instance of apparent lay opinion was plainly harmless. After the overruled objection, the prosecutor immediately elicited that the officer could not “make out the face of the person” in the video whom he had said was defendant. The officer’s testimony as a whole made clear that he did not claim to recognize defendant in the video, but that he was testifying about similarities between the appearance and distinctive clothing of the man in the video and that of defendant when he was arrested. People v Calderon, 2019 NY Slip Op 02468, First Dept 4-2-19

 

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