Criminal Law – Page 283 – New York Appellate Digest

REFERENCES TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR COMMISSION OF A VIOLENT CRIME AND IMPRISONMENT WERE INTERTWINED WITH THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS, THE PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHED THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the prosecutor’s mention of the details of a prior violent crime of which defendant was convicted, evidence the defendant had been in prison, ineffective redaction of references to the prior crime in the medical records, restrictions on the defense expert’s testimony concerning the expert’s reasons for doubting defendant committed the prior crime, and defense counsel’s mention of the prior crime in voir dire, did not warrant reversal. Defendant was convicted of robbing a women of $40 at knife point. Defendant claimed he was not responsible by reason of mental illness. There was evidence he suffered from schizophrenia and he claimed voices told him to commit robbery to get money to buy cigarettes:

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence that defendant had been released from prison a few months before the robbery, and denying counsel’s request to redact that information from defendant’s medical records. In support of the defense of lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect, the defense psychiatric expert testified that defendant had been stable throughout his years in custody, when he received proper treatment for his schizophrenia. However, after he was released, he no longer received treatment, he became unstable, he began hearing voices, and he committed the robbery a few months later. Evidence of defendant’s confinement in prison was “inextricably interwoven” with the expert’s testimony and conclusion … . The court minimized the possible prejudice by excluding evidence of defendant’s underlying conviction and only admitted references to his imprisonment.

The court properly rejected defendant’s suggested use of terms such as “institution” or “facility,” rather than “prison,” because such terms might have confused the jury, or led it to speculate on the circumstances surrounding his confinement. Moreover, the court instructed the jury that the evidence was admitted solely for the purpose of evaluating the expert’s opinion. Thus, the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, which was avoided by the court’s thorough limiting instructions … .

The dissent claims that the trial court infringed on defendant’s ability to present a defense when the court prevented defendant’s expert from expanding on his answers provided during cross-examination about defendant’s prior violent act. Defendant did not preserve his claim regarding the alleged limitations on his expert’s testimony, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. People v Sanabria, 2017 NY Slip Op 04359, 1st Dept 6-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, PRIOR CRIMES, REFERENCES TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR COMMISSION OF A VIOLENT CRIME AND IMPRISONMENT WERE INTERTWINED WITH THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS, THE PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHED THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRIOR CRIMES, REFERENCES TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR COMMISSION OF A VIOLENT CRIME AND IMPRISONMENT WERE INTERTWINED WITH THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS, THE PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHED THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT)/PRIOR CRIMES AND BAD ACTS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, REFERENCES TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR COMMISSION OF A VIOLENT CRIME AND IMPRISONMENT WERE INTERTWINED WITH THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS, THE PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHED THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT)

June 1, 2017

Appeals, Criminal Law

WHETHER THE POLICE ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND IS THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissent by Judge Rivera, determined whether entry into defendant’s home was justified by exigent circumstances is a mixed question of facts and law that cannot be addressed by the Court of Appeals:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The conclusion that the warrantless entry by police into defendant’s home was justified by exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. Where, as here, there is support in the record for the Appellate Division’s conclusion, the issue is beyond our further review … . “The rule applies ‘where the facts are disputed . . . or where reasonable minds may differ as to the inference to be drawn [from the established facts]'”… . The dissent’s conclusion to the contrary is based on a narrative derived from the suppression hearing record that unduly emphasizes the testimony and resulting inferences that are favorable to defendant. …

RIVERA, J. (dissenting):

As a matter of law, there is no record evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into defendant’s home … . Therefore, the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered. I dissent. People v Sivertson, 2017 NY Slip Op 04320, CtApp 6-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE POLICE ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S home WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND IS THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE THE COURT OF APPEALS)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE POLICE ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND IS THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE THE COURT OF APPEALS)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE POLICE ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND IS THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE THE COURT OF APPEALS)/EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE POLICE ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND IS THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE THE COURT OF APPEALS)

June 1, 2017

Criminal Law, Evidence

SCHOOL CUSTODIAN’S STATEMENT TO A TEACHER THAT ON THE DAY HE IS FIRED HE WILL COME IN AND ‘COLUMBINE THIS SHIT’ DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A TERRORISTIC THREAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW, DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT AFTER A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS PROPER.

The Second Department determined defendant’s statement to a teacher that on the day he was fired from his school custodian job he would “Columbine this shit” was not legally sufficient evidence of a “terrorist threat” within the meaning of the Penal Law. The indictment was properly dismissed upon reading the grand jury minutes:

” In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt'”… . “The reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes, and whether the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference. That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference”… .

According to the grand jury minutes, the defendant, who was a custodian at a school for more than a decade, was eating a sandwich in the school’s faculty break room when a teacher entered the room and asked how he was doing after the first week of school. The defendant allegedly told the teacher that another teacher was on his “shit list,” and that “people better stay out of [his] way.” When the teacher told him, among other things, that he should “try to relax a little bit” and that “we all have to like work together here,” the defendant allegedly got out of his chair and told the teacher that she “better be absent the day they fire me because I am going to come in here and Columbine this shit.” He then mimed shooting a gun while imitating gun noises. Based upon his statements, the defendant was charged in an indictment with making a terroristic threat (Penal Law § 490.20), a class D felony.

Penal Law article 490 was enacted shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001, to ensure that terrorists are prosecuted and punished in state courts with appropriate severity … . In construing the statute, courts must be cognizant that “the concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act” … . Penal Law § 490.20(1) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when with intent to intimidate . . . a civilian population . . . he or she threatens to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense.”

Contrary to the People’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment since the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence that the defendant’s comment caused a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of a specified offense … . The teacher testified that she did not believe that the defendant’s threat of a school shooting was imminent and, therefore, she waited to report the defendant’s comment. Moreover, the defendant’s alleged threat was expressly conditioned by the phrase, “the day they fire me.” The People did not present any evidence that the defendant was about to be terminated from his job, or had any reason to believe that he was going to be terminated. People v Hulsen, 2017 NY Slip Op 04294, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

CRIMINAL LAW (TERRORISTIC THREAT, EVIDENCE, SCHOOL CUSTODIAN’S STATEMENT TO A TEACHER THAT ON THE DAY HE IS FIRED HE WILL COME IN AND ‘COLUMBINE THIS SHIT’ DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A TERRORISTIC THREAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW, DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT AFTER A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS PROPER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TERRORISTIC THREAT, SCHOOL CUSTODIAN’S STATEMENT TO A TEACHER THAT ON THE DAY HE IS FIRED HE WILL COME IN AND ‘COLUMBINE THIS SHIT’ DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A TERRORISTIC THREAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW, DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT AFTER A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS PROPER)/GRAND JURY (EVIDENCE, TERRORISTIC THREAT, SCHOOL CUSTODIAN’S STATEMENT TO A TEACHER THAT ON THE DAY HE IS FIRED HE WILL COME IN AND ‘COLUMBINE THIS SHIT’ DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A TERRORISTIC THREAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW, DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT AFTER A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS PROPER)/TERRORISM (CRIMINAL LAW, TERRORISTIC THREAT, SCHOOL CUSTODIAN’S STATEMENT TO A TEACHER THAT ON THE DAY HE IS FIRED HE WILL COME IN AND ‘COLUMBINE THIS SHIT’ DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A TERRORISTIC THREAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW, DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT AFTER A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS PROPER)

May 31, 2017

Criminal Law, Evidence

DEFENDANT’S DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED AT HIGH SPEEDS AND IGNORING TRAFFIC LIGHTS, RESULTING IN AN INTERSECTION COLLISION WHICH KILLED THE OTHER DRIVER, SUPPORTED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION.

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, determined the evidence supported defendant’s conviction for depraved indifference murder in this driving-while-intoxicated/vehicular-homicide case. Defendant, who was intoxicated and high on marijuana, drove at high speeds through residential neighborhoods, ignoring traffic lights at intersections. A collision an an intersection split the victim’s (Whether’s) car in two and killed him instantly. The dissent argued the high evidence-threshold for depraved indifference murder was not met:

A person is guilty of depraved indifference murder when, “[u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, [such person] recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.25[2]). Depraved indifference is a culpable mental state which “is best understood [*3]as an utter disregard for the value of human life—a willingness to act not because one intends harm, but because one simply doesn’t care whether grievous harm results or not” … . Thus, “a depraved and utterly indifferent actor is someone who does not care if another is injured or killed” … . “The mens rea of depraved indifference to human life can, like any other mens rea, be proved by circumstantial evidence” … .

Here, the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death to another person. First, the defendant was knowingly driving with a revoked driver license. Second, the defendant was driving while intoxicated with a BAC of approximately 0.25%, and high on marijuana. Third, the defendant engaged in a high-speed chase with the police for approximately two miles. Fourth, during this chase, the defendant sped through narrow streets of a residential neighborhood, traveling at speeds of more than double the legal limit. The defendant also ran through numerous stop signs and red traffic lights, without slowing down.

The evidence further demonstrated that prior to the crash, the defendant sped eastbound down Pine Street, a residential street with stop signs and traffic lights, reaching a speed of over 80 miles per hour. Perhaps most significantly, the compelling circumstantial evidence demonstrated that as the defendant approached a red traffic light at the intersection of Guy Lombardo Avenue, he narrowly missed another vehicle that crossed the intersection, and seconds later, without slowing down, he ran the red light and crashed into Whethers’ vehicle with such force that he split the vehicle in two, instantly killing Whethers. The direct and circumstantial evidence proved that the defendant deliberately drove his vehicle into this intersection with an utter disregard for the value of human life, and thus was legally sufficient to support the determination that the defendant acted with depraved indifference … . People v Williams, 2017 NY Slip Op 04302, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER, DEFENDANT’S DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED AT HIGH SPEEDS AND IGNORING TRAFFIC LIGHTS, RESULTING IN AN INTERSECTION COLLISION WHICH KILLED THE OTHER DRIVER, SUPPORTED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER, DEFENDANT’S DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED AT HIGH SPEEDS AND IGNORING TRAFFIC LIGHTS, RESULTING IN AN INTERSECTION COLLISION WHICH KILLED THE OTHER DRIVER, SUPPORTED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION)/DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER DEFENDANT’S DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED AT HIGH SPEEDS AND IGNORING TRAFFIC LIGHTS, RESULTING IN AN INTERSECTION COLLISION WHICH KILLED THE OTHER DRIVER, SUPPORTED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION)

May 31, 2017

Attorneys, Criminal Law, Immigration Law

DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel was properly granted. The hearing demonstrated defendant could have pled to an offense that would not result in mandatory deportation:

… [D]efendant established that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to attempt to negotiate a plea to a crime that would not have constituted an aggravated felony under federal law, and therefore would not have subjected him to mandatory deportation. The record establishes that the People were willing to accept a plea to a crime pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(12) that would not have subjected the defendant to mandatory deportation and that defense counsel did not make such a request because he was not aware that a plea pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(12) would not have subjected the defendant to mandatory deportation … . Moreover, defense counsel testified at a hearing on the motion to vacate the judgment of conviction that, had he known that a plea pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(1) would have subjected the defendant to mandatory deportation, he would have attempted to negotiate a plea under Penal Law § 220.16(12) and would have advised the defendant not to take the plea that he ultimately took. This evidence supports the court’s finding that the defendant was not afforded meaningful representation as guaranteed by the New York Constitution …

Further, in light of the People’s admission that they would have been amenable to such a plea had defense counsel raised the issue, the defendant established that he was prejudiced by defense counsel’s conduct in failing to attempt to negotiate a plea that would not have subjected the defendant to mandatory deportation … . In addition, since the People refused at the time of the hearing on the motion to consent to vacate the defendant’s conviction so as to have the case restored to the calendar to allow the defendant to plead pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(12), this further establishes that defense counsel’s failure to attempt to negotiate a plea pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(12) at a time when the People were amenable to such a plea prejudiced the defendant and affected the “fairness of the process as a whole” … . People v Guzman, 2017 NY Slip Op 04291, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)

May 31, 2017

Appeals, Criminal Law

THE ABSENCE FROM THE JURY CHARGE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE (ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT) REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

The First Department reversed defendant’s attempted robbery conviction, despite the lack of preservation of the error, because the jury charge did not make it clear that defendant must possess a dangerous instrument. The store clerk testified defendant had a knife and threatened him with it. However the exchange where the knife was allegedly brandished was not captured on the imperfect video and no knife was subsequently found by the police:

Defendant does not dispute that he failed to preserve his objection to the jury charge on attempted robbery. Accordingly, he asks us to exercise our interests-of-justice jurisdiction to reach the issue. There is precedent for exercising such jurisdiction in cases where a jury instruction was “manifestly incorrect” … . Defendant urges us to follow that precedent, arguing that the jury charge misstated the elements of the crime of first degree robbery. Defendant is correct in this regard. On its face, Penal Law § 160.15(3), under which defendant was charged, would appear to require conviction even if a person threatened to use a dangerous instrument that he did not in fact possess. However, the requirement for actual possession is an essential element that has been judicially engrafted onto the statute … . The People argue that the court technically issued a correct charge, because the CJI pattern jury instruction for “Attempt to Commit a Crime” provides for the court to merely “read [the] statutory definition of [the completed] crime and any defined terms as set forth in CJI for that crime” (CJI 2d [NY] Penal Law § 110.00). Because the statutory definition of robbery in the first degree does not, as stated above, require actual possession, they argue, the court’s instruction cannot be criticized. We reject this reasoning, because it reads out of the CJI instruction the words “as set forth in CJI for that crime” (id.). The current version of the CJI charge for Penal Law § 160.15(3) expressly refers to the possession requirement by stating, in pertinent part:

“In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all the evidence in the case beyond a reasonable doubt, both of the following two elements: 1. That on or about (date), in the county of (county), the defendant, (defendant’s name), forcibly stole property from (specify); and 2. That in the course of the commission of the crime [or of immediate flight therefrom], the defendant [or another participant in the crime] possessed a dangerous instrument and used or threatened the immediate use of that dangerous instrument” (CJI 2d [NY] Penal Law § 160.15 [3]) (emphasis added). People v Saigo, 2017 NY Slip Op 04237, 1st Dept 5-30-17

CRIMINAL LAW (THE ABSENCE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE, ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, FROM THE JURY CHARGE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ERRONEOUS JURY CHARGE, INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REVERSAL, THE ABSENCE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE, ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, FROM THE JURY CHARGE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, (THE ABSENCE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE, ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, FROM THE JURY CHARGE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/ROBBERY (THE ABSENCE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE, ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, FROM THE JURY CHARGE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)

May 30, 2017

Criminal Law

WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED.

The First Department noted that the People’s motion to set aside defendant’s sentence based upon an illegal sentence was properly brought and granted. Where the criteria are met, sentencing a defendant as a predicate felon is mandatory. Defendant should have been so sentenced but was not:

Where a defendant is in fact a predicate offender, sentencing the defendant as a nonpredicate results in an illegal sentence. The provisions of CPL 400.15, governing second violent felony offender adjudications, are mandatory, and neither the People nor a court may ignore or waive a defendant’s predicate status … . The claim that defendant describes as a collateral estoppel argument is without merit. The defective resentencing of defendant as a nonpredicate had no collateral estoppel effect with regard to the People’s timely CPL 440.40 motion, which was a permissible alternative to an appeal. “When the People seek to challenge a sentence as illegal, they may appeal . . ., or, within one year of the judgment, they may make a motion to set aside the sentence” … . The very purpose of a (defendant’s) CPL 440.20 motion or a (People’s) 440.40 motion is to correct a substantively illegal sentence without the necessity of an appeal; obviously, the court deciding such a motion is not bound by a sentencing court’s express or implied finding that the challenged sentence was legal. People v Heisler, 2017 NY Slip Op 04220, 1st Dept 5-30-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED)/SENTENCING (PREDICATE FELON, WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED)/PREDICATE FELON (SENTENCING, WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED)/SENTENCE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED)

May 30, 2017

Criminal Law, Trespass

IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined detaining defendant while the police, after taking the defendant’s ID, checked to see if defendant’s girlfriend lived in an apartment, was not a seizure. Defendant had been seen (by the police) making quick trips in and out of an apartment complex. To determine if defendant was trespassing, the police went to the apartment where defendant said his girlfriend lived. The occupant of the apartment was shown defendant’s ID and denied knowing him. The police then had probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass:

This Court has repeatedly held that in a trespass situation, a police officer may conduct a brief investigation to ascertain whether a defendant’s explanation was credible, and this does not rise to a level three forcible detention or seizure … .

In determining the lawfulness of police encounters, New York has long followed the four-level test illustrated in People v De Bour (40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). To determine a seizure under De Bour, “[t]he test is whether a reasonable person would have believed, under the circumstances, that the officer’s conduct was a significant limitation on his or her freedom” …. The dissent cannot point to any New York State case applying the De Bour standard to support the broad proposition that a seizure occurs whenever an officer retains a person’s identification. Although the dissent cites to several federal and out-of-state cases, those cases present different factual scenarios compared to the circumstances here, and are not controlling. People v Hill, 2017 NY Slip Op 04236, 1st Dept 5-30-17

CRIMINAL LAW (IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE)/TRESPASS (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOP, (IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE)/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEIZURE, IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE)/SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, (IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE)

May 30, 2017

Attorneys, Criminal Law, Immigration Law

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The First Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to set aside her conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant alleged she was told by her attorney (erroneously) that a guilty plea would not result in deportation:

Defendant said in an affidavit that she informed her plea counsel that she was not a U.S. citizen but was a legal permanent resident and was concerned about maintaining her immigration status and not being deported. Counsel advised her that, if she pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree conspiracy, she would receive five years of probation, with no jail time, and assured her that, by taking the plea and receiving probation, she would not have to fear any deportation proceedings. Defendant, age 26 at the time, had been in jail since her arrest, and wanted to be released as soon as possible, so that she could rejoin her two young children.

Accordingly, defendant pleaded guilty, was sentenced as indicated, and successfully completed her probation.

However, in 2012, defendant was referred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and on June 5, 2012, ICE issued her a Notice to Appear. Defendant said that she learned that conspiracy is considered an “aggravated felony” under the immigration law, which leaves her exposed to deportation proceedings, except under limited and difficult-to-meet exceptions under the Convention Against Torture. …

Defendant said that, if she had known that her guilty plea would subject her to a risk of deportation, she “never would have entered a guilty plea,” but instead “would have contested the matter, tried to negotiate a better plea or taken the case to trial.” She said that she believed that she “would have had a good defense as [she]was not involved in any drug activity, did not know that [her] stepfather was involved in drugs and never saw any drugs … .”

Defendant submitted an affidavit by her plea counsel, who said that she no longer possessed a copy of defendant’s file, and the plea transcript was not available. Nonetheless, counsel said she recalled speaking to defendant a few times, with her secretary acting as interpreter. Counsel recalled that defendant was a legal resident and not a U.S. citizen, but “[did] not recall any advice [she] may have given to [defendant] concerning the plea she eventually entered and the ramifications of that plea upon her status in the United States.”

Counsel explained that her difficulty remembering was due not only to the passage of 15 years, but also to the fact that, at the time of the plea, she was going through “personal difficulties,” including “alcoholism and addiction.” In May 2000, counsel was indicted in Supreme Court, Ulster County, for first-degree promoting prison contraband, seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, and second-degree harassment.

Under these circumstances, a hearing should be held on whether counsel’s performance rose to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel… . People v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 04200, 1st Dept 5-26-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION, MOTION TO, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/SET ASIDE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)

May 26, 2017

Criminal Law

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA SATISFIED AN UNCHARGED BURGLARY, THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION FOR THE UNCHARGED BURGLARY.

The Third Department determined the sentencing court erred when it ordered restitution for an uncharged burglary (on December 18). Although defendant’s guilty plea was taken in satisfaction of the uncharged December 18 burglary, that burglary was never included in an accusatory instrument and was not shown to be part of the same criminal transaction to which defendant pled:

Pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27, a trial court may order restitution arising from “the offense for which a defendant was convicted, as well as any other offense that is part of the same criminal transaction or that is contained in any other accusatory instrument disposed of by any plea of guilty by the defendant to an offense” (Penal Law § 60.27 [4] [a]). Defendant’s guilty plea pertained to the December 24, 2014 burglary of the warehouse, and satisfied uncharged burglaries from that warehouse on December 15 and 18, 2014. … After a hearing, County Court determined that there was insufficient evidence that defendant had committed the December 15 burglary but ordered restitution in the amount of $11,471 for the materials stolen in the December 18 burglary.

However, no proof was adduced at the hearing that the December 18 burglary was ever charged in an accusatory instrument and the People did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that this burglary was part of “the same criminal transaction” as the December 24 crime of conviction … . To be part of the same criminal transaction, the conduct must be “either (a) so closely related and connected in point of time and circumstance of commission as to constitute a single criminal incident, or (b) so closely related in criminal purpose or objective as to constitute elements or integral parts of a single criminal venture” … . Here, the evidence established that there were three separate burglaries, each committed days apart in which distinct materials were stolen, and each was completed when the perpetrator left the premises with the stolen materials … . As such, the evidence established that the burglaries were separate “criminal transaction[s]” and did not demonstrate that they were “integral parts of a single criminal venture”” (CPL 40.10 [2] [a], [b]), as there was no proof that they “involve[d] planned, ongoing organized criminal activity, such as conspiracies, complex frauds or larcenies, or narcotics rings” … . Accordingly, Penal Law § 60.20 (4) (a) did not authorize restitution for the December 18 burglary, and the restitution order must be vacated … . People v Pixley, 2017 NY Slip Op 04173, 3rd Dept 5-25-17

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA SATISFIED AN UNCHARGED BURGLARY, THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION FOR THE UNCHARGED BURGLARY)/RESTITUTION (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA SATISFIED AN UNCHARGED BURGLARY, THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION FOR THE UNCHARGED BURGLARY)

May 25, 2017

REFERENCES TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR COMMISSION OF A VIOLENT CRIME AND IMPRISONMENT WERE INTERTWINED WITH THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS, THE PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHED THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT.

WHETHER THE POLICE ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND IS THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

SCHOOL CUSTODIAN’S STATEMENT TO A TEACHER THAT ON THE DAY HE IS FIRED HE WILL COME IN AND ‘COLUMBINE THIS SHIT’ DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A TERRORISTIC THREAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW, DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT AFTER A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS PROPER.

DEFENDANT’S DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED AT HIGH SPEEDS AND IGNORING TRAFFIC LIGHTS, RESULTING IN AN INTERSECTION COLLISION WHICH KILLED THE OTHER DRIVER, SUPPORTED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION.

DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED.

THE ABSENCE FROM THE JURY CHARGE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE (ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT) REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED.

IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE.

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA SATISFIED AN UNCHARGED BURGLARY, THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION FOR THE UNCHARGED BURGLARY.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.