You are here: / Criminal Law

COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge to which the previously tried (and reversed) case had been reassigned, did not, pursuant to the Judiciary Law, have the power to issue a verdict based upon a review of the transcript of the prior non-jury trial. Manifest necessity required a mistrial. New trial will not violate double jeopardy rule:

As is relevant here, Judiciary Law § 21 provides that a trial judge “shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he [or she] was not present and sitting therein as a judge.” This statute has been interpreted to allow a substitute judge to preside over an already-commenced jury trial or decide a purely legal question, but it prohibits a substitute judge from weighing testimony or making factual and credibility determinations when he or she did not hear the witnesses’ testimony firsthand …. .

Here, Judiciary Law § 21 precluded County Court from rendering a verdict inasmuch as this was a nonjury trial and, in deciding the ultimate issue of guilt, County Court was required to weigh testimony and make factual determinations based upon testimony it did not hear and observe … . In view of the improper comments and actions of County Court … that led to the case being reassigned after the close of proof, coupled with the application of Judiciary Law § 21, we find that a mistrial was manifestly necessary such that double jeopardy does not bar a retrial. Accordingly, we conclude that a new trial is warranted. People v Banks, 2017 NY Slip Op 05474, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/RETRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, MANIFEST NECESSITY, MISTRIAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/MANIFEST NECESSITY (MISTRIAL, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)

FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT’S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS 1ST DEPT.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the People’s failure to seek the court’s permission to re-present the murder charge to the grand jury was a jurisdictional defect to which a harmless error analysis could not be applied. The dissent argued the error was harmless because defendant (Allen) was acquitted of the murder charge (and convicted of manslaughter). The majority argued that the illegal murder charge loomed over the entire trial and necessarily affected defense strategy and jury deliberations:

The murder charge lacked jurisdictional legitimacy , violating Allen’s constitutional right to be tried for a felony only upon a valid indictment … . While the trial for murder did not violate double jeopardy, it cannot be doubted that the presence of the charge “impugn[ed] the very integrity of the criminal proceeding” (Mayo, 48 NY2d at 252). There is nothing to suggest that Mayo is limited to double jeopardy cases in the manner suggested by the dissent; indeed, the Mayo court recognized that errors of “constitutional magnitude . . . are so fundamental that their commission serves to invalidate the entire trial,” and are not susceptible to a traditional spillover analysis, which has its “most convincing application in the area of trial errors concerning the admissibility of evidence” … .

The dissent maintains that the right to an indictment by a grand jury is not a right “so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error” (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the New York State constitution holds that no person shall be held to answer for an infamous crime unless upon indictment of the grand jury (NY Const, art 1, § 6), and the right to indictment by grand jury has been recognized “as not merely a personal privilege of the defendant but a public fundamental right which is the basis of jurisdiction to try and punish an individual” … .

Although defendant Allen was ultimately acquitted of the murder charge, the charge’s presence loomed over the trial, and in some way influenced the verdict. Rather than continuing to deliberate concerning Allen’s innocence — including evidence suggesting that he was surprised by the shooting, and may have intended that the victim receive no more than a “clipping” — the jury may have concluded that it had sufficiently grappled with the proof by acquitting him of the most serious charge. People v Allen, 2017 NY Slip Op 05501, 1st Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT’S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS 1ST DEPT)/INDICTMENT (FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT’S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS FIRST DEPT)/GRAND JURY  (FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT’S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS FIRST DEPT)/JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT’S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS FIRST DEPT)

, ,

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant sex offender’s “for cause” challenge to a juror should have been granted in this civil commitment proceeding:

The record of the voir dire reveals that after the appellant’s counsel disclosed that the appellant previously had committed rapes and robberies against 11 different victims and had been dubbed “the Flatbush rapist” in 1991, a prospective juror repeatedly turned away from counsel, said “Wow” on numerous occasions, and acknowledged that she remembered the Flatbush rapist. She further expressed the concern that “I got too many granddaughters,” and when asked at various points if the appellant’s prior offenses might influence her ability to be fair, she remarked “I just went blank,” “I don’t know, I—it&mdash,” and “You know I’m looking at the man and I’m—I know his face, but that’s when he was young and I’m like, wow.” Significantly, the prospective juror never unequivocally asserted that she could be fair and impartial following these remarks. The appellant’s subsequent challenge to the prospective juror for cause was denied, and the appellant utilized a peremptory challenge to remove her from the panel.

The appellant contends that the denial of his for-cause challenge constituted error. We agree. Contrary to the State’s contention, this issue is preserved for appellate review, since the appellant exhausted his peremptory challenges before jury selection was completed (… Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[b]; CPL 270.20[2]). Turning to the merits, CPL 270.20(1)(b) provides that a challenge for cause is authorized when a prospective juror “has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him [or her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial.” Where a prospective juror’s responses raise serious doubt with regard to his ability to be impartial, that prospective juror must be excused absent an unequivocal statement on the record assuring that he or she can be fair and impartial… . Here, the equivocal responses of the prospective juror, along with her other remarks and expressions of concern, raised substantial doubt as to whether she could be fair and impartial in her evaluation of the case, triggering an obligation on the part of the Supreme Court to inquire further … . Matter of State of New York v Keith G., 2017 NY Slip Op 05444, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CIVIL COMMITMENT, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/CIVIL COMMITMENT (SEX OFFENDERS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/JURORS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE (JURORS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CIVIL COMMITMENT, SEX OFFENDERS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)

DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the “for cause” challenge to a juror should have been granted. Defendant was charged with offenses related to insurance fraud. The insurer was AIG. The prospective juror worked for AIG:

Here, during the first round of jury selection, prospective juror No. 16 indicated that she worked for AIG. Upon inquiry by the defendant, the prospective juror explained that her job involved analyzing the financial policies for three divisions at AIG: “[a]sset management, financial services, and domestic life.” We note that, in response to the defendant’s questions, the prospective juror did not provide a completely unequivocal assurance that she could be fair and impartial. She thought that she could be fair and impartial, but conceded that there “may be” a conflict of interest from the defendant’s perspective, and that it might be better if she were on a different case so as to enable the defendant to feel “comfortable” that he “wouldn’t be prejudiced in any way.” Thereafter, the County Court denied the defendant’s for-cause challenge without asking the prospective juror any questions about her employment at AIG or how it might affect her ability to serve as a juror, notwithstanding that the court had an obligation to try and determine “[a]ll issues of fact or law arising on the challenge” (CPL 270.20[2]).

Contrary to the County Court’s determination, the prospective juror’s professional relationship with AIG, her employer, rendered her unsuitable for jury service and necessitated her removal for cause (see CPL 270.20[1][c]… ). We note that AIG drafted and funded the insurance check underlying several counts of the indictment, and AIG was the named complainant in the count alleging insurance fraud in the third degree. Under all the circumstances, there was a considerable risk that the prospective juror could unwittingly give undue credence to witnesses from AIG and her service would give rise to the perception that the defendant did not receive a fair trial … . People v Guldi, 2017 NY Slip Op 05459, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE, DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE,  DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)

EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, reversing (over a dissent) defendants' convictions in a gang assault case, and granting leave for the People to appeal to the Court of Appeals, determined it was reversible error to empanel an anonymous jury. The trial judge explained his reasoning for not revealing the jurors' names as follows: “I know the last five years an increasing number of jurors told me that A, they feel uncomfortable walking in and out of the courtroom to their cars; B, they feel really uncomfortable giving their names, especially in violent felonies. And after speaking to [the Commissioner of Jurors] about it, she told me that's exactly the same feedback she gets, that jurors are uncomfortable about those two things, especially having their names in the courtroom. Now, my intent is to get as many jurors as we can possibly get to serve. And I think that because of that, I think that it limits the number of jurors that we get because they don't want to go through that worry and stress . . . about this because these are violent felonies. You know and I know we deal with this stuff every day, jurors don't. And that's the reason. It's not specifically this case, but that's the reason it's happening more and more and more often. So that's the reason.” The Second Department held the empaneling of an anonymous jury violated the criminal procedure law and the error was not harmless (the dissent argued the error was harmless):

The best evidence of the Legislature's intent is the text of the statute itself … . Where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, a court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used … .

CPL 270.15(1)(a) provides, in part, “the court shall direct that the names of not less than twelve members of the panel be drawn and called as prescribed by the judiciary law.”

CPL 270.15(1-a) provides:

“The court may for good cause shown, upon motion of either party or any affected person or upon its own initiative, issue a protective order for a stated period regulating disclosure of the business or residential address of any prospective or sworn juror to any person or persons, other than to counsel for either party. Such good cause shall exist where the court determines that there is a likelihood of bribery, jury tampering or of physical injury or harassment of the juror.”

Read together, these sections of CPL 270.15 prohibit a trial court from withholding the names of prospective jurors. The plain language of CPL 270.15(1)(a) provides that the names be called. CPL 270.15(1-a) allows for the issuance of a protective order regulating disclosure of addresses. It does not allow for the issuance of a protective order regulating disclosure of names. People v Flores, 2017 NY Slip Op 05457, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT)/JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT)/ANONYMOUS JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT)

,

PEOPLE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS, THE WITNESS’S TESTIMONY AFFIRMATIVELY DAMAGED THE PEOPLE’S CASE AND WAS NOT, AS ARGUED BY THE CONCURRING JUSTICES, MERELY NEUTRAL OR UNHELPFUL.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice concurrence, determined the People were properly allowed to impeach their own witness when the witness testified she did not see the driver of the car from which shots were fired. She had previously stated the defendant was the driver. The concurring justices argued that the witness’s changed testimony did not affirmatively damage the People’s case, but was merely neutral and unhelpful, and therefore impeachment was not appropriate. However, the concurring justices deemed the error harmless:

Contrary to defendant’s … contention, the court properly allowed the People to impeach the credibility of the victim’s girlfriend when she testified that she did not see the driver of the vehicle who shot the victim, which contradicted her grand jury testimony and her sworn statement identifying defendant as the shooter. It is well established that “[e]vidence of a prior contradictory statement may be received for the limited purpose of impeaching the witness’s credibility with respect to his or her testimony . . . [where, as here], the testimony on a material fact’ . . . tend[s] to disprove the party’s position or affirmatively damage[s] the party’s case’ ” … . We conclude that the testimony of the witness denying that she saw the driver related to a material fact, the identity of the shooter, and affirmatively damaged the People’s case … , particularly because the victim did not testify. People v Ellison, 2017 NY Slip Op 05339, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE ISSUES AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA UPON LEARNING OF THE ERROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED. ​

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. Defendant was told he could appeal the court’s ruling that the grand jury minutes constituted legally sufficient evidence of the charges in the indictment. However the denial of a motion to dismiss arguing the insufficiency or inadmissibility of the grand jury evidence is not appealable after a guilty plea:

We agree with defendant … that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. “A trial court is constitutionally required to ensure that a defendant, before entering a guilty plea, has a full understanding of what the plea entails and its consequences” … . It is nevertheless well established that a guilty plea is not invalid merely because the court “failed to specifically enumerate all the rights to which the defendant was entitled and to elicit from him or her a list of detailed waivers before accepting the guilty plea” … . Where the record establishes, however, that the court incorrectly advised the defendant of the consequences of his guilty plea, the resulting plea “must be vacated because it was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered” … .

Here, the court incorrectly advised defendant with respect to the rights that defendant was forfeiting in pleading guilty. It is well established that a defendant who pleads guilty may not challenge on appeal the sufficiency or the admissibility of the evidence before the grand jury … . The record establishes, however, that defendant asked to be assured that he could raise those issues on appeal from a judgment entered upon his plea of guilty, and the court assured him that he could do so. Given those assurances, which ended up being false, defendant accepted the plea deal, and entered a guilty plea. When defendant learned that he would not be able to raise on appeal the above grand jury issues, he made a motion to withdraw his plea, which the court denied. Under the circumstances, that was error. People v Colon, 2017 NY Slip Op 05343, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

MULTIPLICITOUS COUNTS OF SEX OFFENSE INDICTMENT DISMISSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE COUNTS CHARGED SINGLE UNINTERRUPTED OFFENSES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SPLIT INTO TWO COUNTS EACH.

The Fourth Department, in the interest of justice, determined several counts of the sex offense indictment were multiplicitous and therefore must be dismissed. The defendant was charged with two counts for single uninterrupted events, touching the victim’s vagina while simultaneously having the victim touch his penis:

An indictment is multiplicitous “when a single offense is charged in more than one count”… . A person commits the criminal offense of sexual abuse in the first degree when he or she subjects a person under 11 years old to sexual contact … . Nevertheless, a defendant may not be charged with separate counts of sexual abuse in the first degree for each instance of unlawful sexual contact where the instances of sexual contact constitute “a single, uninterrupted criminal act”  … . Here, for each instance of defendant touching a victim’s vagina, defendant was properly charged with a single and distinct count. By contrast, for each instance of defendant compelling a victim to touch his penis while defendant was simultaneously touching that victim’s vagina, defendant was charged with two separate counts. Charging two separate counts under those facts was improper inasmuch as the actions alleged in each pair of counts constituted a single, uninterrupted criminal act. We thus conclude that the indictment was multiplicitous, and we therefore dismiss counts 2, 5, 13 through 17, and 25 through 28 of indictment No. 5548 … . People v Sprague, 2017 NY Slip Op 05347, 4th dept 6-30-17

 

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WANTED TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE (IMPLICITLY INCLUDING THE DEFENDANT) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined a for cause challenge to a juror who said she would like to hear from everybody (implicitly including the defendant) should have been granted:

Upon being asked by defense counsel whether she thought that she “would have to hear from [defendant] in order to determine what the verdict should be,” the prospective juror responded, in relevant part, that she “would like to hear from everyone involved.” Defense counsel later asked the prospective juror, by way of confirmation, whether she had said that she would “like to hear from [defendant],” and the prospective juror reiterated that she “would like to hear from everyone.” We conclude that the prospective juror’s responses suggested that defendant had an obligation to testify, thereby casting serious doubt on her ability to render an impartial verdict … . We further conclude that the prospective juror’s silence when the court subsequently asked the entire panel whether anyone “needs to hear from the defendant or must hear from the defendant before he or she renders a verdict” did not constitute an unequivocal assurance of impartiality that would warrant denial of defendant’s challenge for cause … . People v Hargis, 2017 NY Slip Op 05363, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

NEW YORK’S PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCING SCHEME IS CONSTITUTIONAL, IT DOES NOT INVOLVE PROOF OF A FACT OTHER THAN A PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reaffirmed its prior holdings finding New York’s persistent felony offender sentencing scheme constitutional:

The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee criminal defendants in state courts “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” To satisfy that right, the People must prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Among those elements is any fact — other than one admitted by the defendant or involving the mere fact of a prior felony conviction … — that has the effect of increasing the prescribed range of penalties to which a defendant is exposed … . …

… [W]e have held that the [persistent felony offender] statute … exposes defendants to an enhanced sentencing range based only on the existence of two prior felony convictions … . As we have consistently explained, the existence of those prior convictions — each the result of either a guilty plea or a jury verdict — is the “sole determinant of whether a defendant is subject to recidivist sentencing as a persistent felony offender” … . Only after the existence of those prior convictions is established and the maximum permissible sentence raised does Supreme Court have “the discretion to choose the appropriate sentence within a sentencing range prescribed by statute” … .

“The court’s opinion is, of course, subject to appellate review, as is any exercise of discretion. The Appellate Division, in its own discretion, may conclude that a persistent felony offender sentence is too harsh or otherwise improvident” and reduce it in the interest of justice to a sentence within the statutory range fixed by the legislature for the crime of conviction, without regard to the persistent felony offender enhancement … . “In this way, the Appellate Division can and should mitigate inappropriately severe applications of the statute” … .

In other words, the statute mandates a two-part process: in step one, the court adjudicates the defendant a persistent felony offender if the necessary and sufficient fact of the two prior convictions is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby exposing him to the sentencing range applicable to such offenders; in step two, it evaluates what sentence is warranted and sets forth an explanation of its opinion on that question for the record … . People v Prindle, 2017 NY Slip Op 05267, CtApp 6-29-17

 

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