You are here: / Criminal Law
,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE MURDER INDICTMENT ON CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, SIX-YEARS BETWEEN ARREST AND GUILTY PLEA, SPEEDY TRIAL IS NOT A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a three-judge dissent, reversing the appellate division, determined that defendant was entitled to dismissal of the second degree murder indictment (to which he pled guilty) on constitutional speedy trial grounds. The opinion is fact-based, covers several significant legal issues (i.e. CPL 30.30 is not applicable, speedy trial is not a mixed question of law and fact, pre versus post-indictment delay, inter alia), and cannot be fairly summarized here. ” … [T]he People pursued a cooperation agreement with [codefendant] Armstead for approximately 2½ years. After that effort proved unsuccessful, they spent the next three years attempting to convict Armstead, trying him separately from defendant. After three mistrials, Armstead had been convicted of only criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, he had been acquitted on the top count of second-degree murder, and the People were no closer to securing his testimony against defendant. The time between defendant’s arrest on May 28, 2008 and defendant’s plea on September 23, 2014 spanned six years, three months, and 25 days, from when defendant was 16 years old until he was 22. Defendant spent the entirety of that period incarcerated.” The opinion goes through each of the Taranovich factors:

We analyze constitutional speedy trial claims using the five factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442 [1975]): “(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay” (id. at 445). These factors are similar, but not identical, to the factors used in evaluating speedy trial claims under the federal constitution, which include the “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant” … . “[N]o one factor or combination of the factors . . . is necessarily decisive or determinative of the speedy trial claim, but rather the particular case must be considered in light of all the factors as they apply to it” … . People v Wiggins, 2018 NY Slip Op 01111, CtApp 2-15-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SPEEDY TRIAL, APPEALS, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE MURDER INDICTMENT ON CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, SIX-YEARS BETWEEN ARREST AND GUILTY PLEA, SPEEDY TRIAL IS NOT A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT (CT APP))/SPEEDY TRIAL (DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE MURDER INDICTMENT ON CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, SIX-YEARS BETWEEN ARREST AND GUILTY PLEA, SPEEDY TRIAL IS NOT A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SPEEDY TRIAL, EFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE MURDER INDICTMENT ON CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, SIX-YEARS BETWEEN ARREST AND GUILTY PLEA, SPEEDY TRIAL IS NOT A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT (CT APP))/MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, SPEEDY TRIAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE MURDER INDICTMENT ON CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, SIX-YEARS BETWEEN ARREST AND GUILTY PLEA, SPEEDY TRIAL IS NOT A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT (CT APP))

, ,

A DIAGNOSIS OF PARAPHILIA NOS (NONCONSENT) IS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DISORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court properly found, after a Frye hearing ordered by the Second Department and held after the trial, the diagnosis of paraphilia NOS (nonconsent) is not generally accepted in the psychiatric and psychological communities. The evidence should not have been admitted at the sex offender’s civil commitment trial:

The evidence at the Frye hearing showed that there was no clear definition or criteria for the diagnosis, the diagnosis could not be reliably distinguished from other motivations for rape, the articles offered in support of the diagnosis did not reflect a wide, significant, or well-rounded body of research supporting the validity of the diagnosis, and the diagnosis was repeatedly rejected for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (hereinafter DSM) or in the DSM appendix … . Thus, evidence of the paraphilia NOS (nonconsent) diagnosis should not have been admitted at trial. Since the error was not harmless, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial on the issue of mental abnormality, excluding evidence of the paraphilia NOS (nonconsent) diagnosis, and, if necessary, a new dispositional hearing. Matter of State of New York v Richard S., 2018 NY Slip Op 01072, Second Dept 2-14-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDER, CIVIL COMMITMENT, A DIAGNOSIS OF PARAPHIILIA NOS (NONCONSENT) S NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DISORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDERS (CIVIL COMMITMENT,  A DIAGNOSIS OF PARAPHILIA NOS (NONCONSENT) IS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DISORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL COMMITMENT (SEX OFFENDERS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, A DIAGNOSIS OF PARAPHILIA NOS (NONCONSENT) IS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DISORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, A DIAGNOSIS OF PARAPHILIA NOS (NONCONSENT) IS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DISORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

A DIAGNOSIS OF UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER IS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DISORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Frye hearing did not demonstrate that diagnosis of unspecified paraphilic disorder has achieved general acceptance in the psychiatric and psychological communities. Therefore the expert evidence on the disorder should not have been admitted at the trial to determine whether appellant sex offender should be subject to civil commitment:

At the Frye hearing, Dr. David Thornton and Dr. Kostas Katsavdakis, who testified for the State, and Dr. Joe Scroppo, who testified on behalf of the appellant, agreed that the forensic use of the diagnosis of unspecified paraphilic disorder, which was added to the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (hereinafter DSM-5) in 2013, was problematic and controversial, since there was no clear definition or criteria for the proposed disorder. Moreover, all of the experts testified that there was no research demonstrating the reliability of the unspecified paraphilic disorder diagnosis after its introduction in the DSM-5 in 2013. Notably, the experts were not aware of any published research, clinical trials, or field studies regarding unspecified paraphilic disorder.

Accordingly, we conclude that the State failed to establish that the diagnosis of unspecified paraphilic disorder has achieved general acceptance in the psychiatric and psychological communities so as to make expert testimony on that diagnosis admissible, and as such, that diagnosis should not have been admitted at the appellant’s trial. Since the admission of this testimony was not harmless, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial on the issue of mental abnormality, excluding evidence of the unspecified paraphilic disorder diagnosis, and, if necessary, a new dispositional hearing. Matter of State of New York v Hilton C., 2018 NY Slip Op 01071, Second Dept 2-14-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDER, CIVIL COMMITMENT, A DIAGNOSIS OF UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER IS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DISORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDERS (CIVIL COMMITMENT,  A DIAGNOSIS OF UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER IS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DISORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL COMMITMENT (SEX OFFENDERS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, A DIAGNOSIS OF UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER IS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DISORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, A DIAGNOSIS OF UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER IS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DISORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED IT COULD CONSIDER THE ACTIONS OF COMPLAINANT’S HUSBAND IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED IN THIS ASSAULT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the jury should have been instructed that it could consider the actions of the complainant’s husband in this assault case. The defendant raised the justification defense. The altercation leading to the assault charge involved both the complainant and her husband:

… [A] new trial is required because the trial court erroneously declined the defendant’s request that the jury be instructed that it could consider the actions of the complainant’s husband in determining whether the defendant’s use of force was justified … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the error cannot be deemed harmless, as the evidence to establish that the defendant was not justified was not overwhelming, and the jury may have reached a different conclusion had a proper and complete justification instruction been given … . Significantly, the defendant’s case rested on finding that he was justified in responding to the actions of the complainant’s husband … . People v Lijo, 2018 NY Slip Op 01081, Second Dept 2-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED IT COULD CONSIDER THE ACTIONS OF COMPLAINANT’S HUSBAND IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED IN THIS ASSAULT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE ( JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED IT COULD CONSIDER THE ACTIONS OF COMPLAINANT’S HUSBAND IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED IN THIS ASSAULT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED IT COULD CONSIDER THE ACTIONS OF COMPLAINANT’S HUSBAND IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED IN THIS ASSAULT CASE (SECOND DEPT))

,

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that a youthful offender (YO) adjudication can be considered in assessing the risk level of a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Defendant contested the level three sex offender designation. The Court of Appeals held that consideration of the YO adjudication in this context did not violate the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL):

CPL 720.35 (2) provides the Board with access to YO-related documents. Defendant’s argument that access alone does not authorize use ignores that the CPL does not permit access for its own sake, but in furtherance of a statutory purpose. Here, that purpose is found in SORA, which requires the Board establish guidelines and make risk level determinations based, in part, on an offender’s past actions (Correction Law § 168-l [5]). * * *

Certainly, the youthful offender statute reflects the Legislature’s recognition of the difference between a youth and an adult, and the Legislature clearly made a policy choice to give a class of young people a distinct benefit. Nevertheless, in concluding that an earlier YO adjudication may be used in assessing points against defendant, the Board has not acted in violation of the CPL … . People v Francis, 2018 NY Slip Op 01017, CtApp 2-13-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT. YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (OUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT. YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP))

MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS ADEQUATELY CHARGED POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS KNIFE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a concurrence and a concurrence/dissent, in a memorandum addressing two cases (McCain and Edward), determined the misdemeanor complaints were sufficient to support the charge of possessing a “dangerous knife:”

The factual allegations of a misdemeanor complaint must establish “reasonable cause” to believe that a defendant committed the charged offense … . Reasonable cause “exists when evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it” … .

Here, the factual allegations of each misdemeanor complaint establish reasonable cause to believe that each defendant possessed a “dangerous knife” … , triggering the statutory presumption of unlawful intent arising from such possession … .

From the concurrence/dissent:

I concur in the result in People v McCain because the officer’s sworn statement attached to the complaint specifies that the “knife was activated by deponent to an open and locked position through the force of gravity,” which meets the statutory definition of “gravity knife” in Penal Law § 265.00 (5), and therefore a fortiori is a “dangerous knife” under Penal Law § 265.01, when subsections (1) and (2) thereof are read together.

I dissent from the result in People v Edward for the reasons set out in Judge Simons’ dissent in Matter of Jamie D.(59 NY2d 589 [1983]). People v McCain, 2018 NY Slip Op 01018, CtApp 2-13-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS ADEQUATELY CHARGED POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS KNIFE (CT APP))/DANGEROUS KNIFE (CRIMINAL LAW, MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS ADEQUATELY CHARGED POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS KNIFE (CT APP))/WEAPON, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF (MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS ADEQUATELY CHARGED POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS KNIFE (CT APP))/MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS (CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS ADEQUATELY CHARGED POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS KNIFE (CT APP))

,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence was not sufficient to support endangering the welfare of a child. The child’s mother was convicted of killing the victim and transporting the victim’s body in a car when her four-year-old daughter was in the car:

​

We agree with defendant, however, that her conviction of endangering the welfare of a child is not based on legally sufficient evidence, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. The charge arose from defendant allegedly having her four-year-old child accompany her when she transported the victim’s body to her mother’s house. Viewing the evidence in support of that charge in the light most favorable to the People … , we conclude that the People failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the child’s riding in the car with the victim’s body was likely to result in harm to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of the child … . Specifically, the People presented no evidence that the child was aware that the victim’s body was in the car or that the child was upset or bothered by any smells or sights in the car or later at his grandmother’s house … . People v Chase, 2018 NY Slip Op 00935, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD (EVIDENCE, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))

SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, noted that the failure to mention youthful offender treatment in a plea offer does not constrain the court from considering it:

​

There is no dispute that defendant was eligible … for youthful offender treatment (see CPL 720.10). Nevertheless, based on comments that the court made in denying defendant’s request for youthful offender treatment, it appears that the court believed that it was constrained to deny defendant’s request simply because it was not contemplated by the People’s plea offer. …

“Compliance with CPL 720.20 (1) requires the sentencing court to actually consider and make an independent determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment” … . Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals has held that CPL 720.20 (1) mandates “that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant . . . agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” … , a new sentencing proceeding is required… . People v Hobbs, 2018 NY Slip Op 00995, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (CRIMINAL LAW, SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT))/PLEA AGREEMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE UNAVAILABILITY OF A WITNESS AND THE RELATED ADJOURNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds should not have been granted. The delay attributed to the unavailability of a witness and the related adjournment should not have been charged to the People:

​

We agree with the People that a witness’s one-day unavailability while her father is undergoing heart surgery is an excludable delay that was “occasioned by exceptional circumstances” … . Moreover, the ensuing 21-day adjournment until February 2, 2017 was attributable to the court and not chargeable to the People … , inasmuch as the People had requested a one-day adjournment and “any period of an adjournment in excess of that actually requested by the People is excluded” … . People v Barnett, 2018 NY Slip Op 00968, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE UNAVAILABILITY OF A WITNESS AND THE RELATED ADJOURNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (FOURTH DEPT))/SPEEDY TRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE UNAVAILABILITY OF A WITNESS AND THE RELATED ADJOURNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (FOURTH DEPT))

SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second felony offender based upon a prior federal drug conspiracy conviction:

​

“It is well settled that, under New York’s strict equivalency standard for convictions rendered in other jurisdictions, a federal conviction for conspiracy to commit a drug crime may not serve as a predicate felony for sentencing purposes” … . We therefore modify the order by granting that part of defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 seeking to vacate the sentence, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to resentence defendant as a nonpredicate felon … . People v Hamn, 2018 NY Slip Op 00961, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT))/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION (FOURTH 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