You are here: / Criminal Law
,

POLICE OFFICER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANTS AS THE PERSONS DEPICTED IN VIDEOTAPES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that a police officer was properly allowed to identify defendants as persons depicted in videotapes:

The circumstances … warranted testimony by the officer identifying defendants as persons depicted in videotapes … . Notwithstanding the fact that defendants had not changed their appearance subsequent to having been videotaped, the testimony was permissible, because “[the] testimony served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the [men] in the [were] indeed the defendant[s]'”… . Furthermore, the circumstances suggested that the jury would be less able than the officer to determine whether the defendants were seen in the videotapes, given the poor quality of the surveillance tapes, which showed groups of young men, mostly from a distance, thus rendering his testimony appropriate … . The trial court instructed the jurors that the officer’s testimony concerning the identities of those seen on video was his opinion and that the ultimate identification determination belonged exclusively to the jury. Furthermore, none of the officer’s testimony violated the hearsay rule or defendants’ right of confrontation. People v Pinkston, 2019 NY Slip Op 01171, First Dept 2-19-19

 

WHERE A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN RESENTENCED BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS ILLEGAL, THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE CONTROLS FOR DETERMINATION OF PREDICATE FELONY STATUS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a three-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that, where a defendant has been resentenced because the original sentence was illegal, the date of the original sentence, not the subsequent resentence, controls for the purpose of determining predicate felony status:

… [D]efendant’s proffered interpretation of Penal Law § 70.06 is not supported by the plain language of that provision, its well-established legislative purpose, or our precedent. Therefore, because the original sentences on defendant’s 1989 convictions were imposed before commission of the present felony, the sequentiality requirement of the predicate felony statute was satisfied, and defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender. People v Thomas, 2019 NY Slip Op 01167, CtApp 2-19-19

 

,

COURT RECORDS RELATED TO PROCEEDINGS FOR THE COMMITMENT AND RETENTION OF DANGEROUS MENTALLY ILL ACQUITTEES ARE NOT CLINICAL RECORDS AND THEREFORE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE AUTOMATIC SEALING REQUIREMENT IN THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined that the records of Criminal Procedure Law 330.20 proceedings related to the commitment and retention of insanity acquittees (suffering from a dangerous mental disorder) are not “clinical records” within the meaning of the Mental Hygiene Law and, therefore, are not subject to the automatic sealing requirement:

The plain text of Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 … cuts against defendant’s interpretation that the term “clinical record” includes the entire record of court proceedings or dictates to a court how to manage its own records. * * *

Throughout our history, “the institutional value” of open judicial proceedings has fostered “an appearance of fairness” … and ensured “the public interest in having proceedings of courts of justice public, not secret, for the greater security thus given for the proper administration of justice” … . Interpreting Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13, despite the absence of any supporting statutory language, to provide a blanket sealing requirement of an entire court record that is automatically conferred disregards that tradition. In balancing the privacy rights of a defendant with the public’s right to know how dangerous mentally ill acquittees are managed by the courts, the legislature eschewed an automatic sealing requirement of the court record. We refuse to disturb that balance today. Here, defendant demanded an automatic seal in stark contrast to a case specific analysis that demands a court to find good cause sufficient to rebut the legislative presumption of public access for any sealing, in part or whole, upon due consideration of the competing and compelling interests of the public and the parties … . Matter of James Q. (Commissioner of the Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities), 2019 NY Slip Op 01166, CtApp 2-19-19

 

, , ,

FAILURE TO GRANT AN ADJOURNMENT TO ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHO HAD BEEN ACTING IN A LIMITED ADVISORY CAPACITY, TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE FOR A SUPPRESSION HEARING DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, NEW SUPPRESSION HEARING ORDERED, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department held the appeal in abeyance to allow a new suppression hearing. defense counsel. Defense counsel was acting in a limited advisory capacity when he was asked by the judge to conduct the suppression hearing. Defendant asked for an adjournment to allow counsel to review the voluminous discovery materials, but the request was denied. The Second Department held that the denial of the adjournment deprived defendant of his right to counsel:

“[T]he right of a defendant to be represented by an attorney means more than just having a person with a law degree nominally represent him [or her] upon a trial and ask questions” … . “[T]he right to effective representation includes the right to assistance by an attorney who has taken the time to review and prepare both the law and the facts relevant to the defense and who is familiar with, and able to employ . . . basic principles of criminal law and procedure” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for an adjournment to give his attorney more time to prepare for the suppression hearing. Prior to the hearing, counsel acted in the limited capacity of advisor since the defendant wished to proceed pro se. However, at the court’s urging, counsel agreed to represent the defendant at the suppression hearing but expressed his concern that he had not had an adequate opportunity to review voluminous discovery materials … . People v Costan, 2019 NY Slip Op 01089, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

, ,

FAILURE TO IDENTIFY AN APPEALABLE ISSUE IN AN ANDERS BRIEF ARGUING THAT THERE ARE NO NONFRIVOLOUS ISSUES WARRANTING APPEAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW APPELLATE COUNSEL, HERE THE MISSING ISSUE WAS DEEMED INCONSEQUENTIAL AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ANOTHER ASSESSMENT BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, announced a new rule concerning when new counsel should be assigned because an Anders brief did not demonstrate the absence of any issues which could be raised on appeal. The defendant had pled guilty and received the agreed upon sentence, which was the minimum sentence allowed. The defendant had also waived his right to appeal. The Anders brief addressed the plea and sentence (finding no appealable issues) but did not address the waiver of appeal. The Second Department determined there was no need to assign new counsel to the appeal because whether the waiver of appeal was valid or not, the result would not be affected:

… [A]n Anders brief will not be deemed deficient under Step 1 of the Matter of Giovanni S. [89 AD3d at 252] analysis when assigned counsel fails to identify an issue, if it is demonstrable from the face of the brief that the missing issue would be inconsequential. We do not suggest that this new “Matter of Giovanni S.-Murray rule” be applied where any missing issue would not be inconsequential. Since the brief would be sufficient under these circumstances, the court would then proceed to Step 2 of the Matter of Giovanni S. analysis, which requires an independent review of the record to determine whether counsel’s assessment that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal is correct. This refinement safeguards the indelible right of a criminal defendant to a conscientious, effective, and zealous advocate that lies at the heart of Anders protection … . At the same time, it recognizes a measure of practicality, that congested courts operating under tight budgets, with limited personnel, and finite taxpayer money, not be required to engage in Sisyphean efforts that cannot, as a matter of law, lead anywhere. People v Murray, 2019 NY Slip Op 01101, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

, ,

NO SHOWING THAT POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER OR A TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY INCREASED THE RISK OF REOFFENSE, APPELLATE DIVISION EXERCISED ITS OWN DISCRETION AND REDUCED DEFENDANT’S RISK LEVEL FROM TWO TO ONE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined that defendant should have been adjudicated a level one, not a level two risk:

Although defendant was diagnosed with PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] and may have sustained a TBI traumatic brain injury], the record is devoid of evidence that any such mental impairment “is causally related to a[ ] risk of reoffense” … . …

Nor is the continuing nature of the crime sufficient to support the upward departure because, even if additional points were assessed for risk factor 4, i.e., continuing course of sexual misconduct, defendant’s total risk factor score would not result in defendant’s classification as a presumptive level two risk … . Further, there is no basis for an upward departure where, as here, the alleged aggravating factor is adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines … . Finally, although we conclude that defendant’s actions in taking the victim across state lines constitute an aggravating factor that is, “as a matter of law, of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines” … , we further conclude that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting an upward departure based on that factor under the circumstances of this case. We therefore substitute our own discretion … . People v Logsdon, 2019 NY Slip Op 00998, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

,

ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PROHIBITING CONTACT BETWEEN FATHER AND DAUGHTER SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO ANY SUBSEQUENT CUSTODY OR VISITATION ORDERS BY FAMILY OR SUPREME COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the order of protection prohibiting contact between father and daughter should be subject to orders of Family or Supreme Court:

Here, the order of protection issued in this criminal proceeding bars all contact between defendant and his child, and cannot be modified by a subsequent visitation order of Family Court or Supreme Court unless it is first modified or vacated by the criminal court … . We agree with defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the order of protection should be subject to any subsequent orders of custody and visitation, and we therefore modify the judgment by amending the order of protection in favor of defendant’s biological daughter so that contact will be allowed if ordered by Family or Supreme Court in a custody, visitation or child abuse or neglect proceeding … . People v Smart, 2019 NY Slip Op 01043, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

,

THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME AND PLACE OF THE OFFENSES, THIS IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR, PLEA TO THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, reversing County Court, determined the waiver of indictment was jurisdictionally defective in that there was no indication of the time and date of the alleged offenses (rape). Although defendant had waived his right to appeal, the Fourth Department vacated his guilty plea:

… [T]he written waiver does not contain any data whatsoever regarding the “date and approximate time and place of each offense to be charged in the superior court information,” as explicitly required by CPL 195.20. Notwithstanding that defect, County Court determined that the written waiver “fully complie[d] with the provisions of Sections 195.10 and 195.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law” and approved it accordingly (see CPL 195.30 [requiring judicial approval of indictment waiver upon determination that it complies with CPL 195.10 and 195.20]).

The ensuing SCI [superior court information] charged defendant with two counts of second-degree rape under Penal Law § 130.30 (1). Count one alleged that defendant, “between approximately September 1, 2013 and September 9, 2013, in the City of Batavia, County of Genesee, State of New York, being eighteen years old or more, engaged in sexual intercourse with another person less than fifteen years old.” Count two alleged that defendant, “on a second occasion between approximately September 1, 2013 and September 9, 2013, in the City of Batavia, County of Genesee, State of New York, being eighteen years old or more, engaged in sexual intercourse with another person less than fifteen years old.” * * *

Because “an infringement of defendant’s right to be prosecuted only by indictment implicates the jurisdiction of the court” … , the Court of Appeals has repeatedly stressed that the “[f]ailure to adhere to the statutory procedure for waiving indictment” is a “jurisdictional[ defect] affecting the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law’ ” … . People v Colon-colon, 2019 NY Slip Op 01039, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS ASSAULT CASE, EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT DENIED ASSAULTING THE VICTIM AT TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial on the assault count because the jury was not instructed on the justification defense. The court noted that the instruction was required even though the defendant denied the assault:

Here, defendant testified at trial that the altercation was an unprovoked attack by a number of correction officers in retaliation for earlier grievances he had lodged against prison staff. Defendant testified that he felt “trapped” by the attack and started biting another correction officer in self-defense. Correction officers who witnessed the altercation testified that the two officers involved in the altercation were engaged in a prolonged “struggle” with defendant, during which the three men “wrestl[ed] pretty hard.” Although defendant denied causing the injuries of the subject correction officer, that officer testified that defendant did cause his injuries.

Contrary to the People’s contention, defendant was entitled to a justification charge, even though at trial he denied assaulting the subject correction officer, and argued that the People failed to prove that he possessed the pen used to injure the subject correction officer. “[A] defendant’s entitlement to a charge on a claimed defense is not defeated solely by reason of its inconsistency with some other defense raised or even with the defendant’s outright denial that he was involved in the crime” … . Rather, “[a] jury may believe portions of both the defense and prosecution evidence . . . and still find . . . that defendant acted justifiably” … . People v Brown, 2019 NY Slip Op 01023, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S KIDNAPPING CONVICTIONS VACATED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER, DEFENDANT WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF MURDER, BURGLARY AND ROBBERY, APPEAL CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, noting the outcome of the appeal by a co-defendant, in the interest of justice, determined defendant’s kidnapping convictions should be vacated pursuant to the merger doctrine. Defendant was convicted of murder, kidnapping, burglary and robbery:

The defendant and Domingo Mateo were indicted on charges of murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first and second degrees, burglary in the first degree, and robbery in the first and second degrees in connection with a home invasion, which occurred on May 3, 2011, and resulted in the death of one of the occupants of the home. Mateo was tried separately and convicted on all counts. Thereafter, the defendant was tried and convicted on all counts. On Mateo’s appeal, this Court found that his conviction of kidnapping in the second degree was precluded by the merger doctrine and modified the judgment of conviction by vacating the conviction of kidnapping in the second degree and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment as to that defendant (see People v Mateo, 148 AD3d 727).

The defendant now contends that his conviction of kidnapping in the second degree was precluded by the merger doctrine. Although his contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), we nevertheless reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, vacate the defendant’s conviction of kidnapping in the second degree and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismiss that count of the indictment as to the defendant … . People v Mejia, 2019 NY Slip Op 00903, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

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