You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

ENTIRE JURY PANEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON AN INTERACTION BETWEEN ONE POTENTIAL JUROR AND DEFENDANT’S BROTHER, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the entire first jury panel should not have been dismissed because of an interaction between one of the potential jurors and defendant’s brother. The decision dealt substantively with several other issues: (1) affirming the denial of defendant’s speedy trial motion; (2) finding the prosecution’s failure to produce the Miranda card was not a Rosario violation and an adverse inference jury charge was an appropriate sanction; and (3) finding that the DNA evidence introduced by a witness who did not participate in the testing procedures violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him:

​

The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s application to dismiss the entire jury panel, concluding that the defendant’s brother had potentially tainted the entire panel. Significantly, the court did not first conduct an inquiry of the potential jurors as to what they had seen and as to whether they could remain impartial. Where, as here, a jury panel is “properly drawn and sworn to answer questions truthfully, there must be legal cause or a peremptory challenge to exclude a [prospective] juror” … . By dismissing the entire jury panel without questioning the ability of the individual prospective jurors to be fair and impartial … , the court deprived the defendant of a jury chosen “at random from a fair cross-section of the community” … .

​

… [T]he DNA profiles and reports produced from the testing of evidence recovered from the decedent’s home, including the defendant’s clothing, are testimonial, because such profiles and reports “were generated in aid of a police investigation of a particular defendant charged by an accusatory instrument and created for the purpose of substantively proving the guilt of [that] defendant,” and because all of the documents in the file of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner refer to the defendant by name and label him a “suspect” … . … [T]he admission of such evidence violated the defendant’s confrontation right, because it was admitted upon the testimony of an analyst who did not perform, witness, or supervise the generation of the defendant’s DNA profile, or perform an independent analysis on the raw data … . People v Metellus, 2018 NY Slip Op 00312, Second Dept 1-17-18

 CRIMINAL LAW (ENTIRE JURY PANEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON AN INTERACTION BETWEEN ONE POTENTIAL JUROR AND DEFENDANT’S BROTHER, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, ENTIRE JURY PANEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON AN INTERACTION BETWEEN ONE POTENTIAL JUROR AND DEFENDANT’S BROTHER, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT))/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT))/CONFRONTATION, RIGHT TO (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea on a writ of coram nobis, determined County Court should not have threatened defendant with the maximum sentence should she go to trial and defendant’s former appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to bring that issue up on appeal:

​

During discussions regarding the People’s plea offer, the court initially advised the defendant that she faced a “total maximum [of] 60 years in state prison.” Although the court acknowledged that a “cumulative sentencing statute . . . would reduce that to probably between 30 and 40,” it later advised the defendant that “[i]f you are facing 60 years in state prison with all these counts of assault on a seven month old child then you need to discuss that offer very carefully with [defense counsel] and follow his advice.” After defense counsel advised the court that the defendant did not accept the People’s plea offer, the court told the defendant, “[t]hat’s fine. That’s what we do here. We do trials. A case like this I would almost rather have a trial than have a plea bargaining. If this is all true there is no [sentence] short of the maximum that’s appropriate that’s the problem with the case. If it isn’t true then the jury will so decide. That’s not up to me.” Later that afternoon, the defendant accepted the People’s plea offer … .

​

“In order to be valid, a plea of guilty must be entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently”… . Although a court may properly comment during plea negotiations regarding a defendant’s sentencing exposure upon conviction after trial, it may not explicitly threaten to sentence a defendant to the maximum term upon conviction after trial … . Under the circumstances of this case, former appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the issue that the defendant’s plea of guilty was coerced by the County Court’s comments … . Since the court’s remarks were impermissibly coercive, the defendant was entitled to vacatur of her plea of guilty. People v Sanabria, 2018 NY Slip Op 00316, Second Dept 1-17-18

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (VACATED, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, APPEALS, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CORAM NOBIS, WRIT OF (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the appeal of the SORA risk assessment was not properly before it because County Court never issued the required order:

​

County Court, in a bench decision, adopted the People’s arguments regarding both the override and the assessment of additional points, denied defendant’s request for a downward departure and classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender. …

​

County Court is statutorily required to “render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” … . The resulting order “must be in writing”…  and, further, must be “entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable”… . The record before this Court does not reflect that County Court issued a written order or that any such order subsequently was entered and filed. Although County Court indicated that its bench decision would “serve[] as the order of the [c]ourt,” a bench decision is neither a substitute for the required written order nor an appealable paper … . Notably, neither the transcript of the court’s bench decision nor the standard form designating defendant’s risk level classification, the latter of which County Court signed and dated, contains the “so ordered” language required “so as to constitute an appealable order” … . Absent evidence of the required written order, this appeal is not properly before us and must be dismissed … . People v Scott, 2018 NY Slip Op 00203, Third Dept 1-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT))

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO PLEAD TO A LESSER OFFENSE WITHOUT THE PROSECUTOR’S PERMISSION, HOWEVER NEITHER A WRIT OF PROHIBITION NOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the writ of prohibition against a judge for accepting a plea to a lesser offense without the prosecutor’s permission was not warranted because the judge (the respondent) acknowledged the mistake. The court further determined it did not have the authority to grant the writ of mandamus, seeking vacation of the plea and reinstatement of the more serious charge, because the plea had already been entered and the conditional discharge sentence had been commenced:

​

Under CPL 220.10 (3), “the defendant may, with both the permission of the court and the consent of the people, enter a plea of guilty of a lesser included offense.” “Where the record shows that the prosecutor’s consent to a plea is premised on a negotiated sentence and a lesser sentence is later deemed more appropriate, the People should be given the opportunity to withdraw their consent” … . Respondent concedes in his brief that he committed a legal error in accepting Hernandez’s plea to a reduced charge without petitioner’s consent. The question therefore distills to whether a writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus is warranted given that Hernandez’s guilty plea has already been accepted, she was already sentenced by respondent to, among other things, a one-year conditional discharge period and such period expired in November 2017.

“[T]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition is only available where a body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction and there is a clear legal right to such relief” … . Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to prohibit respondent from accepting guilty pleas to reduced charges in the future without his consent. Respondent, however, noted at the sentencing hearing that this was the first time that he had ever reduced a charge without petitioner’s consent and that he did so “under the circumstances of [the] case.” Given that the record does not indicate that respondent has undertaken such similar action in the past or has expressed an intention to do so in the future, and taking into account respondent’s concession that his actions were erroneous, petitioner is not entitled to a writ of prohibition … . Matter of Carnright v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 00206, Third Dept 1-11-18

FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, held that defendant’s furtive movements inside a car justified the police officer’s fear that defendant may have had a weapon, and the use of a bank card reader to see if the information on the magnetic strips of defendant’s cards matched the information on the front of the cards did not require a search warrant:

​

Upon the officers’ approach to his car, defendant’s “furtive motion[] in attempting to stuff something under the passenger seat . . . caused the officer to reasonably fear for his safety and reasonably believe that defendant might possess a weapon” … . The officers were thus justified in directing defendant to show his hands and get out of the car, and in performing a limited search of the area where defendant appeared to have hidden something … . The search revealed contraband, providing probable cause for defendant’s arrest … . …

​

Defendant’s final suppression argument is that when the police used a bank card reader to determine whether the account information contained in the magnetic strips of the cards recovered from defendant’s wallet matched the information printed on the front of the cards, this action was similar to a cell phone search, and it thus required a search warrant under Riley v California (573 US , 134 S Ct 2473 [2014]). However, a growing number of cases addressing this technology recognize that this type of police action does not violate any privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment … . People v Sankara, 2018 NY Slip Op 00224, First Dept 1-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH AND SEIZURE, FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW,  FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT))/FURTIVE MOVEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT))/BANK CARD READER (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the appellant did not have an intimate relationship with petitioner and therefore Family Court did not have jurisdiction over the family offense proceeding against appellant and could not issue an order of protection. Even though the order of protection had expired, the continuing reputational consequences of the order of protection justified determining the appeal:

The petitioner is the live-in girlfriend of the appellant's brother. The petitioner and the appellant live in the same building, on different floors. The petitioner filed a family offense petition against the appellant, alleging that she had physically attacked and verbally threatened her. * * *

The Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and “cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute”… . “Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1), the Family Court's jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain prescribed criminal acts that occur between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household'” … . “[M]embers of the same family or household” include, among others, “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … . Expressly excluded from the ambit of “intimate relationship” are “casual acquaintance[s]” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts” … . Beyond those delineated exclusions, what qualifies as an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is determined on a case-by-case basis … . Relevant factors include “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” … .

Here, the parties have no direct relationship and are only connected through a third party, who is the petitioner's live-in boyfriend and the appellant's brother. Additionally, the parties have never resided together and their contact with one another has been purely by happenstance, as they live in the same building. Accordingly, they do not have an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). Matter of Royster v Murray, 2018 NY Slip Op 00151, Second Dept 1-10-18

FAMILY LAW (NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/FAMILY OFFENSES (FAMILY COURT, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP (FAMILY COURT, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY OFFENSES, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY OFFENSES, ORDER OF PROTECTION, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/ORDER OF PROTECTION (APPEALS, FAMILY LAW, FAMILY OFFENSES, ORDER OF PROTECTION, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))

DENIAL OF PAROLE WAS IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Parole Board's denial of parole was irrational. When petitioner was 17 he murdered a 14-year-old acquaintance. While in prison petitioner earned three college degrees and was deemed a low risk pursuant to the Correctional Offender Management for Profiling for Alternative Sanction (COMPAS) assessment:

Judicial review of a determination of the Parole Board is narrowly circumscribed … . While the Parole Board is required to consider the relevant statutory factors … , it is not required to address each factor in its decision or accord all of the factors equal weight… .

Here, the petitioner demonstrated his entitlement to having the determination of the Parole Board set aside. The Parole Board's findings that there was a reasonable probability that, if released, the petitioner would not remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release would be incompatible with the welfare of society and would so deprecate the serious nature of the crime as to undermine respect for the law, are without support in the record … . …

​

.. .[T]he record demonstrates that the petitioner took full responsibility for his actions, stating “I don't blame it on the drugs. I blame it on me. I'm responsible. I was responsible for taking drugs and ultimately I'm responsible for what happened while I was under the influence of those drugs.” The petitioner also acknowledged that he had not forgotten the reason he was in prison, he was aware of the damage he had done to the victim, her family, and his own family, and he deeply regretted that his “life took that turn at that time but [he was] not that 17 year old angry kid anymore.” Matter of Coleman v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2018 NY Slip Op 00138, Second Dept 1-10-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PAROLE, DENIAL OF PAROLE WAS IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/PAROLE (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF PAROLE WAS IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined whether defendant should have been adjudicated a sex offender was not reviewable in a SORA risk assessment proceeding. Defendant was convicted of unlawful surveillance for making cell phone videos under women's dresses on the subway. Pursuant to the statute, unlawful surveillance is a sex offense, However the defendant can make a motion asking the court to find registration as a sex offender too harsh under the particular circumstances:

We agree with the People that the statute does not give a SORA court the power to determine a motion under Correction Law § 168-a(2)(e). While we find it significant that the provision assigns the duty of ruling on the motion to “the trial court” — notably the only time that phrase is used in SORA's numerous sections — we do not consider the use of the phrase to be a sufficient basis for our interpretation, because it is arguably malleable enough not to be limited to the court that actually presided over the defendant's trial. However, Correction Law § 168-d(1)(a), describing the “duties of the court,” provides a more definite indication of statutory intent, by way of language that clearly contemplates that certification as a sex offender occurs “upon conviction” and after consideration of any motion pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a(2)(e). Nothing else in the statutory scheme contradicts this understanding. People v Lema, 2018 NY Slip Op 00005, First Dept 1-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER (CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION UPHELD DESPITE INVALID WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined defendant's waiver of his right to counsel was invalid, but deemed the error harmless and upheld his conviction. The defendant repeatedly represented himself at court appearances, repeatedly allowed counsel to represent him, and repeatedly refused to continue and left the courtroom. The trial was ultimately conducted in his absence. The First Department held that the failure to make sure defendant was aware that he faced a maximum of 15 years in prison rendered the waiver of counsel invalid. However, the suppression motion was deemed to have no chance of success and the trial evidence was deemed overwhelming:

The “normal remedy for a violation of the right to counsel at a suppression hearing is a new suppression hearing, with a new trial to follow if, after the new hearing, the evidence is suppressed” … . However, a new hearing would serve no purpose, and need not be ordered, where it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the result at a new trial would be the same even if the defendant prevailed at the suppression hearing. …

​

Even assuming counsel would some how be successful in arguing for the suppression of statements and property recovered, the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming. Defendant was caught red-handed. …

Similarly, even assuming counsel would have been able to secure a more favorable Sandoval ruling, and defendant would have testified on his own behalf, the evidence overwhelmingly proved defendant knowingly and unlawfully entered the … apartment with the intent to take property. People v Rodriguez, 2018 NY Slip Op 00040, First Dept 1-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION UPHELD DESPITE INVALID WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION UPHELD DESPITE INVALID WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION UPHELD DESPITE INVALID WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/WAIVER, RIGHT TO COUNSEL  (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION UPHELD DESPITE INVALID WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))

,

COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant should be afforded the opportunity to move to vacate his guilty plea because the court did not inform him of the deportation consequences. Although the probation report indicated defendant was not a US citizen and was undocumented, the defendant, who had a history of mental illness, told the court, when asked, the he was a US citizen. The First Department held that all defendants must be informed of the deportation consequences for non-citizens:

In People v Peque (22 NY3d 168 [2013]…), the Court of Appeals held that before accepting a plea, due process requires that a court “apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony” … . The Court reasoned that “fundamental fairness . . . requires a trial court to make a noncitizen defendant aware of the risk of deportation because deportation frequently results from a noncitizen's guilty plea and constitutes a uniquely devastating deprivation of liberty” … . Accordingly, “a noncitizen defendant convicted of a removable crime can hardly make a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action'” unless informed of the possibility of deportation … .

Defendant's statement to the court that he was a citizen did not absolve the court of its obligations pursuant to Peque. Notably, Peque did not condition the need to give this warning on whether or not the court has reason to believe the defendant is not a citizen. The warning mandated by Peque is required whether the defendant is a citizen or not. Indeed, the Court of Appeals recognized that in order to protect the rights of the large number of noncitizen defendants pleading guilty to felonies in the state, it was necessary to “make all defendants aware that, if they are not United States citizens,” pleading guilty to a felony might lead to deportation … . People v Palmer, 2018 NY Slip Op 00638, First Dept 1-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEPORTATION, COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION CRIMINAL LAW, COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST 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