You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after a weight of the evidence analysis, determined the evidence did not support the conclusion defendant acted as an accomplice in the assault of a homeless man. The codefendant doused the homeless man with lighter fluid and set him on fire. The defendant said “Do that shit man” and recorded the incident on his phone for one minute before attempting put out the fire:

For the defendant to be held criminally liable for the conduct of the codefendant, the People had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided the codefendant to engage in that conduct, and that the defendant did so with the state of mind required for the commission of the offense (see Penal Law § 20.00). A defendant’s mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with knowledge that the crime is taking place, or mere association with the perpetrator of a crime, is not enough for accessorial liability … .

It is undisputed that the defendant did not assist the codefendant in dousing the victim with lighter fluid or setting fire to the victim, and did not supply any of the materials to the codefendant to commit the criminal act. The defendant’s actions, in uttering, “Do that shit, man,” as the codefendant doused the victim with lighter fluid, and in filming this incident for approximately one minute before rendering any aid to this particularly vulnerable and helpless victim, were deplorable. However, his actions did not support the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided the codefendant to assault the victim, and that he did so sharing the codefendant’s state of mind. People v Fonerin, 2018 NY Slip Op 01480, Second Dept 3-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY (CRIMINAL LAW,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE LIABILIITY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))

,

OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, in a comprehensive street stop (DeBour) analysis too detailed to fairly summarize here, determined the police officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot when he asked defendant, a passenger in a car, “what do you have.” Defendant replied that he had a “piece” and he was convicted of possession of a weapon:

There was nothing improper about the police officers’ direction that the defendant and the two other occupants exit the vehicle. “In light of the heightened dangers faced by investigating police officers during traffic stops, a police officer may, as a precautionary measure and without particularized suspicion, direct the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle to step out of the car” … . However, the scope of that authority is limited to guarding against “the unique danger of a partially concealed automobile occupant by allowing the officer to order occupants out of a car and readily observe their movements” … . …

In the context of a traffic stop, the Court of Appeals has made clear that “a police officer who asks a private citizen if he or she is in possession of a weapon must have founded suspicion that criminality is afoot” …, thereby squarely placing this type of inquiry within De Bour level two. Moreover, mere nervousness does not provide the requisite indication of criminality … .

Here, the circumstances described by Officer Weibert at the suppression hearing did not establish “a founded suspicion that criminality [was] afoot” … . Significantly, there was no testimony of a bulge at the defendant’s waistband … , or any indication that the defendant was reaching for, grabbing at, or adjusting his waistband … . To the contrary, Officer Weibert denied that the defendant made any furtive gesture or reached for anything; he testified only that the defendant was acting nervous, shaking his knees and legs up and down, and leaning forward in his seat with his hands in his lap and his arms tightly at his side. People v White, 2018 NY Slip Op 01492, Second Dept 3-7-18

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (STREET STOPS, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS,  OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/DE BOUR (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

MOTION FOR RESENTENCING PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS MADE WITHIN THREE YEARS OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE ELIGIBILITY DATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005 was properly denied because the motion was made within three years of defendant’s parole eligibility date:

Defendant argues that the 2005 Act should be reinterpreted in light of recent developments, including those relating to the resentencing of persons convicted of other types of drug felonies. However, no decision finding eligibility with regard to any other Drug Law Reform Act has vitiated the 2005 Act’s clear eligibility requirement that the applicant’s parole eligibility date be at least three years in the future. To accept defendant’s argument, we would have to rewrite the statute to treat persons convicted of class A-II felonies the same as persons convicted of other drug felonies … . People v Moore, 2018 NY Slip Op 01428, First Dept 3-6-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION FOR RESENTENCING PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS MADE WITHIN THREE YEARS OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE ELIGIBILITY DATE (FIRST DEPT))/SENTENCING (DRUG LAW REFORM ACT, MOTION FOR RESENTENCING PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS MADE WITHIN THREE YEARS OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE ELIGIBILITY DATE (FIRST DEPT))/RESENTENCING (DRUG LAW REFORM ACT, MOTION FOR RESENTENCING PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS MADE WITHIN THREE YEARS OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE ELIGIBILITY DATE (FIRST DEPT))/DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (MOTION FOR RESENTENCING PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS MADE WITHIN THREE YEARS OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE ELIGIBILITY DATE (FIRST DEPT))

DENIAL OF PAROLE MANIFESTED IRRATIONALITY BORDERING ON IMPROPRIETY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined denying petitioner parole was “irrational.” The proper remedy is a new parole nearing, not granting parole in a court ruling (as Supreme Court did). Petitioner, now 51, was convicted of felony murder when she was very young. She had driven the car to where her husband was staying. A passenger in the car shot and killed her husband. The jury found petitioner did not intend that her husband be killed. Petitioner has been a model prisoner for decades:

The commissioners failed to appreciate that petitioner’s murder conviction was not for intentional murder, but rather for second-degree felony murder. The felony murder rule, of course, provides that a person is guilty of second-degree murder when, “[a]cting either alone or with one or more other persons, [she] commits or attempts to commit [violent crimes including] burglary, . . . and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, [she], or another participant, . . . causes the death of a person other than one of the participants” … . In essence, and particularly in the context of a burglary conviction, the felony murder rule imposes strict and vicarious liability for a killing that one did not intend, provided that it was the result of an enumerated felony that one did intentionally commit. Intent to kill plays no role in a finding of felony murder … .

At the parole hearing, petitioner nonetheless accepted responsibility for her “choices and decisions that led to a chain of events that led to the death of [her] husband.” Far from showing any lack of insight into her crime, petitioner’s testimony at the parole hearing was truthful, accurate, and consistent with what the jury found happened in 1991.

Accordingly, respondent’s determination denying petitioner parole manifested “irrationality bordering on impropriety,” warranting granting the petition to vacate the denial of parole … . Matter of Kellogg v New York State Bd. of Parole, 2018 NY Slip Op 01425, First Dept 3-6-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF PAROLE MANIFESTED IRRATIONALITY BORDERING ON IMPROPRIETY (FIRST DEPT))/PAROLE (DENIAL OF PAROLE MANIFESTED IRRATIONALITY BORDERING ON IMPROPRIETY (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s depraved indifference murder conviction, noted the difference between a “legal sufficiency” analysis and a “weight of the evidence” analysis on appeal, and reiterated that criminally negligent homicide is not a lesser included offense within depraved indifference murder. Here the two-year old victim was subjected to severed physical abuse over a period of days or longer:

Defendant argues that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. A legal sufficiency challenge requires us to “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate whether ‘there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged'” … . A legally sufficient verdict may, however, be against the weight of the evidence … . The latter review requires us to assess whether acquittal was a reasonable possibility and, if so, to weigh “the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony” in deciding whether the verdict was justified … . * * *

Criminally negligent homicide demands that a person act “with criminal negligence” and, in doing so, “causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.10). Inasmuch as criminal negligence involves a person failing “to perceive [the] substantial and unjustifiable risk” of the result set forth by the statute (Penal Law § 15.05 [4]), a person does not commit criminally negligent homicide unless he or she fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death …  In contrast, Penal Law § 125.25 (4) demands that an adult person, “[u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, . . . recklessly engage[] in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury or death to another person less than [11] years old” and that ends in the other person’s death (emphasis added).

The definition of serious physical injury encompasses injuries that do not create a substantial risk of death or cause death, such as those that cause “serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” (Penal Law § 10.00 [10]). As we have previously held, it is therefore theoretically possible to commit depraved indifference murder of a child by “engag[ing] in conduct that creates and disregards a grave risk of serious physical injury, causing death, without . . . engaging in conduct that creates . . . a substantial risk of death, causing death” … . People v Stahli, 2018 NY Slip Op 01359, Third Dept 3-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE (CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))

PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the prosecutor’s closing argument rendered an indictment count duplicitous by suggesting the robbery count could apply to either a cell phone or a bicycle (different victims). The indictment count charged robbery of the cell phone:

The indictment, as amplified by the bill of particulars, charged defendant in the first count with robbery in the second degree, for forcibly stealing one victim’s cell phone, and in the second count with criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, for possession of a bicycle, stolen from another victim, on which defendant attempted to flee the scene. In summation, the prosecutor repeatedly argued — in apparent response to defense counsel’s argument that the evidence showed that defendant abandoned the phone before striking one of his pursuers, and therefore that a robbery could not be established — that even if the court did not find that defendant used force to retain the phone, it could still find that he used force to retain the bicycle. Defense counsel objected to these arguments and the court overruled them.

We find that these arguments rendered the first count duplicitous by newly alleging that defendant was guilty under the first count if he forcibly stole either the phone or the bicycle (see CPL 200.30[1]). The lesser included offense of petit larceny, of which defendant was ultimately convicted, suffered from the same infirmity. People v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 01416, First Dept 3-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (DUPLICITOUS, PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/DUPLICITY (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENTS, PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s presence in a meth lab was not sufficient to demonstrate constructive possession of the contraband in the lab:

A defendant’s mere presence in the same location as contraband is insufficient to establish constructive possession … . Knowledge that the contraband is present is insufficient, standing alone, to show constructive possession… . Some factors that courts may consider in determining whether a defendant constructively possessed contraband are the defendant’s proximity to the contraband, whether the defendant had keys to the location where the contraband was found, whether the contraband was in plain view, evidence that the defendant had used some of the drugs (when drugs are the contraband at issue), and whether there is witness testimony that the contraband belonged to the defendant … .

The evidence at trial demonstrated that defendant and [codefendant] Yerian had been in the garage with [codefendant] Alberts for approximately one hour when the officer arrived. There was no evidence that defendant lived in the house or garage, kept any of his personal belongings there or had keys to the property… . When the officer observed defendant in the workshop area, which measured approximately 10 to 12 feet by 20 to 24 feet, defendant was sitting on a stool in front of a bench, not touching anything. No contraband was recovered from defendant himself, nor did the proof establish that he owned or had even touched any of the contraband. People v Maricle, 2018 NY Slip Op 01217, Third Dept 2-22-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/METHAMPHETAMINE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO HER CLIENT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE MOTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined County County should have assigned a new attorney after defense counsel took a position adverse to her client’s motion to withdraw his plea:

At sentencing, defense counsel appropriately advised County Court that, although she had counseled defendant regarding the potential consequences of withdrawing his guilty plea, and despite her legal advice to the contrary, defendant nevertheless wished to proceed with such a motion. Defendant thereafter set forth various reasons as to why he believed he was entitled to the requested relief. In response to County Court’s subsequent inquiries, however, defense counsel made comments that, in our view, could be construed as undermining the very arguments that defendant had raised in support of his motion. Accordingly, once defense counsel took a position that was adverse to defendant, County Court should have assigned a new attorney to represent him on his motion to withdraw his plea … . People v Oliver, 2018 NY Slip Op 01221, Third Dept 2-22-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO HER CLIENT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE MOTION (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO HER CLIENT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE MOTION (THIRD DEPT))

,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORY FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR DETERMINING DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS IN THIS SEXUAL OFFENSE CASE, WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE CHALLENGE ON APPEAL, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined County Court failed to place on the record the statutory factors to be weighed in determining youthful offender status. The waiver of appeal did not foreclose the challenge on appeal:

… County Court’s comments regarding defendant’s application for youthful offender status failed to satisfy the statutory mandate of CPL 720.10. An appeal waiver does not foreclose a defendant’s challenge that a court failed to make the requisite on-the-record determinations regarding youthful offender treatment … . Pursuant to CPL 720.10 (3), “a youth who has been convicted of . . . criminal sexual act in the first degree . . . is an eligible youth if the court determines that one or more of the following factors exist: (i) mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed; or (ii) where the defendant was not the sole participant in the crime, the defendant’s participation was relatively minor although not so minor as to constitute a defense to the prosecution.” Where, as here, the only barrier to youthful offender status is an enumerated sex offense (see CPL 720.10 [2] [a]), “the court is required to determine on the record whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3)”… . This determination is mandatory, without regard to whether it has been requested or purportedly waived … . People v Martz, 2018 NY Slip Op 01222, Third Dept 2-22-18

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, COUNTY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORY FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR DETERMINING DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS IN THIS SEXUAL OFFENSE CASE, WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE CHALLENGE ON APPEAL, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, COUNTY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORY FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR DETERMINING DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS IN THIS SEXUAL OFFENSE CASE, WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE CHALLENGE ON APPEAL, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (COUNTY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORY FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR DETERMINING DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS IN THIS SEXUAL OFFENSE CASE, WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE CHALLENGE ON APPEAL, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/SEX OFFENSES (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, COUNTY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORY FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR DETERMINING DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS IN THIS SEXUAL OFFENSE CASE, WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE CHALLENGE ON APPEAL, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCATION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT REQUIRED, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined that defendant’s plea colloquy negated an essential element of the offense (criminal contempt). An exception to the preservation requirement applied:

“[W]here a pleading defendant’s recitation of the facts of his or her offense clearly casts doubt on his or her guilt and the court makes no further inquiry, the defendant does not have to preserve a claim of fatal error in the allocution because . . . ‘the court’s attention should have been instantly drawn to the problem, and the salutary purpose of the preservation rule is arguably not jeopardized'” … . Here, defendant stated during her plea allocution that she did not intend to violate the underlying order of protection, thus negating an element of criminal contempt in the first degree… . Although County Court promptly responded and afforded defendant an opportunity to again consult with her counsel, further discussion was then held off the record. Thus, we are unable to ascertain from the record whether the court conducted the requisite further inquiry to ensure that defendant understood the elements of the crime to which she was pleading guilty and that the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . People v Busch-scardino, 2018 NY Slip Op 01218, Third Dept 2-22-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCATION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT REQUIRED, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCATION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT REQUIRED, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCATION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT REQUIRED, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/ALLOCUTION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCATION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT REQUIRED, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/PRESERVATION (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCATION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT REQUIRED, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))

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