You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

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

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW A MOTION TO VACATE THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the record supported defendant’s contention that Supreme Court did not inform him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The matter was sent back to allow defendant to move to vacate his plea:

… [W]e remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea, and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter. Any such motion shall be made by the defendant within 60 days after the date of this decision and order … and, upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation… . In its report to this Court, the Supreme Court shall state whether the defendant has now moved to vacate his plea of guilty, and if so, shall set forth its finding as to whether the defendant made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing to entitle him to vacatur of the plea … . People v Hor, 2019 NY Slip Op 00899, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

,

SENTENCING COURT MUST CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS EVEN WHERE IT IS NOT REQUESTED OR WHERE DEFENDANT AGREES TO FORGO IT AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and the sentencing court was required to consider youthful offender status, even when not requested:

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid … . Although the defendant signed a written waiver, the Supreme Court provided the defendant with no explanation as to the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it … , nor did the court ask the defendant whether he read the waiver form before signing it … . Moreover, the court conflated the trial rights the defendant waived automatically by pleading guilty with the right to appeal … . In any event, the defendant’s contention that the court failed to consider whether to afford him youthful offender treatment would not have been barred by the defendant’s general waiver of the right to appeal … .

CPL 720.20(1) requires that the sentencing court “must” determine whether an eligible defendant is to be treated as a youthful offender, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain … . People v Alleyne, 2019 NY Slip Op 00895, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

,

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSIDER LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES IF THEY FOUND DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF THE HIGHER OFFENSE ON THE BASIS OF JUSTIFICATION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the jury should have been instructed not to consider lesser offenses if it found defendant was not guilty of the greater charge on the basis of justification. The court noted that, on retrial, the jury should be instructed on two categories of assault third as lesser included offenses. Defendant was charged with attempted murder by stabbing and slashing the victim:

” This Court has held that, in a case involving a claim of self-defense, it is error for the trial court not to instruct the jurors that, if they find the defendant not guilty of a greater charge on the basis of justification, they were not to consider any lesser counts'”… . Such failure constitutes reversible error … .

Here, neither the jury instructions nor the verdict sheet on the whole adequately conveyed the principle that, if the jury found the defendant not guilty of the greater charge of attempted murder in the second degree on the basis of justification, it was not to consider any lesser counts … . On this record, it is impossible to discern whether acquittal of the top count of attempted murder in the second degree was based on the jurors’ finding of justification so as to mandate acquittal on the five lesser counts … . People v Akbar, 2019 NY Slip Op 00894, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court abused its discretion by denying the application for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in this juvenile delinquency proceeding:

… [T]he Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s application pursuant to Family Court Act § 315.3 for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. This proceeding constituted the appellant’s first contact with the court system, he took responsibility for his actions, and the record demonstrates that he learned from his mistakes. During the pendency of the proceeding, the appellant readily complied with the supervision imposed by the court and his father’s supervision in the home, and he garnered praise from the Probation Department and school officials. Under the circumstances, including the appellant’s commendable academic and school attendance record, his mentoring of fellow students at his school, and the minimal risk that he poses to the community, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal was warranted … . Matter of Nijuel J., 2019 NY Slip Op 00876, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

,

DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE AT A RODRIGUEZ HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that the detective’s testimony at the Rodriguez hearing established that the witness’s identification of defendant was confirmatory and noted that the witness need not testify at the hearing because hearsay is admissible:

At a Rodriguez hearing (see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 [1992]), a detective’s testimony established that a witness was sufficiently familiar with defendant so that his identification of defendant was confirmatory. The People were not obligated to call the identifying witness … , because the detective gave detailed testimony about the witness’s relationship with defendant. The witness knew defendant, a frequent customer in the witness’s store, by his first name, and saw him several times a week over a period of three years.

Defendant’s request that the witness testify at the Rodriguez hearing was insufficient to preserve his present claim that such testimony was constitutionally required under the Confrontation Clause, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject this claim on the merits, in light of the fundamental difference between a suppression hearing, where hearsay is generally admissible, and a trial … . People v Lee, 2019 NY Slip Op 00824, First Dept 2-5-19

 

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