You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction for two reasons: (1) the trial judge acceded to defendant’s request that the jury not be instructed on a lesser included offense, and (2) the trial judge, in light of defendant’s behavior during the trial, should have ordered a competency examination:

​

We agree with defendant, however, that he was denied his right to counsel when County Court permitted him, rather than defense counsel, to decide whether to request a jury charge on a lesser included offense. “It is well established that a defendant, having accepted the assistance of counsel, retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions regarding the case’ such as whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal’ ” … . “[D]efense counsel has ultimate decision-making authority over matters of strategy and trial tactics, such as whether to seek a jury charge on a lesser included offense” … . Here, defense counsel requested a charge on the lesser included offense of criminal trespass. After defendant stated that he did not want such a charge, the court noted that defendant’s consent was not required. Nevertheless, defense counsel stated that he was not requesting the charge based on defendant’s decision not to follow his advice. Although defense counsel unequivocally and repeatedly stated that the charge was in defendant’s best interest, and indicated that defendant was declining the charge against defense counsel’s advice, the court abided defendant’s choice and thus “denied [defendant] the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him” … . …

​

Although a defendant is presumed to be competent … , whenever a court has a ” reasonable ground for believing that a defendant is in such state of idiocy, imbecility or insanity that he is incapable of understanding the charge, indictment or proceedings or of making his defense, it is the duty of the court to direct him to be examined in these respects’ ” … . Here, in light of the nature and frequency of defendant’s outbursts, and the People’s expressed concern about defendant’s competency prior to trial, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in failing to insure that defendant was competent to stand trial … . People v Minckler, 2017 NY Slip Op 03311, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/COMPETENCY EXAMINATION (CRIMINAL LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)

JUDGE DID NOT GIVE A COMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE ELEMENTS OF BURGLARY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the burglary jury instruction was flawed. Defendant allowed her brother into the home where defendant resided and her brother assaulted a resident of the home in the resident’s bedroom. The jury instruction did not make clear the definitions of a building or unit as those terms are used in the burglary statute:

​

A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree, in pertinent part, when he or she “knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein” (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]). ” Dwelling’ means a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night” (§ 140.00 [3]), and “the definition of building’ includes the following: Where a building consists of two or more units separately secured or occupied, each unit shall be deemed both a separate building in itself and a part of the main building’ ” … .

Here, the court instructed the jurors that a “dwelling is a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night. A bedroom in a home, where there is more than one tenant, may be considered independent of the rest of the house and may be considered a separate dwelling within a building.” The court, however, failed to include the part of the definition of building that would require the jury to determine whether the house at issue consisted of “two or more units” and whether the bedroom at issue was a unit that was “separately secured or occupied” (Penal Law § 140.00 [2]). Consequently, “given the omission of the definition of [ unit’] and/or [ separately secured or occupied,’] the instruction did not adequately convey the meaning of [ building’] to the jury and instead created a great likelihood of confusion such that the degree of precision required for a jury charge was not met” … . People v Pritchard, 2017 NY Slip Op 03287, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE DID NOT GIVE A COMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE ELEMENTS OF BURGLARY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/BURGLARY (JUDGE DID NOT GIVE A COMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE ELEMENTS OF BURGLARY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS WAISTBAND JUSTIFIED AN OFFICER’S DRAWING HIS WEAPON AND POLICE PURSUIT.

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s refusal to turn around upon request and his hands positioned at his waistband justified a police officer’s drawing his weapon and a pursuit of the defendant when her ran. Suppression of the weapon discarded by the defendant was properly denied:

​

… [W]e conclude that defendant’s positioning and his refusal to comply with the officer’s request to return to the vehicle, while not alone indicative of criminal behavior, could be “considered in conjunction with other attendant circumstances” to establish the requisite reasonable suspicion of criminal activity … . In our view, once defendant refused the officer’s request to return to the vehicle and turned toward the officers, the officers could “reasonably suspect[] that defendant was armed and posed a threat to their safety because his actions were directed to the area of his waistband, which was concealed from their view”,,, . The officer who drew his weapon was justified in doing so out of a concern for his own safety … . We thus conclude that defendant’s flight, “in conjunction with the attendant circumstances, gave rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion justifying police pursuit” … . People v Walker, 2017 NY Slip Op 03317, 4th Dept 4-28-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS WAISTBAND JUSTIFIED AN OFFICER’S DRAWING HIS WEAPON AND POLICE PURSUIT)/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS WAISTBAND JUSTIFIED AN OFFICER’S DRAWING HIS WEAPON AND POLICE PURSUIT)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS WAISTBAND JUSTIFIED AN OFFICER’S DRAWING HIS WEAPON AND POLICE PURSUIT)

DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the arresting officer had a founded suspicion of criminal activity justifying his request that defendant show him his hands. Defendant had walked by the officer holding his waistband. When the defendant complied with the officer’s request and raised his hands the officer saw a gun:

​

… [W]e conclude that the location of this encounter in a high-crime area, the officer’s training and his experience in investigating weapons possession crimes at this location, together with defendant’s grabbing of his waistband with his hand concealed under his shirt, provided the requisite founded suspicion for the officer to command defendant to show his hands. Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that it is of no consequence that the officer did not observe a gun before commanding defendant to show his hands. Indeed, defendant’s hand was concealed under his shirt while simultaneously grabbing his waistband. The Court of Appeals has noted that “a handgun is often carried in the waistband” … , and that it would be “absurd to suggest that a police officer has to await the glint of steel before he can act to preserve his safety” … .

We recognize that a founded suspicion may not rest upon innocuous behavior that is susceptible of an innocent as well as a culpable interpretation … . Viewed in isolation by an untrained observer, defendant’s actions might not appear to be suspicious but, “when viewed collectively and in the light of the officer’s expertise,” we conclude that the officer had a founded suspicion of criminal activity warranting a level two inquiry … . People v Simmons, 2017 NY Slip Op 03280, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)

,

LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL.

The First Department determined the loss of the stenographic notes for the last day of the bench trial and sentencing did not preclude appeal:

​

Although the stenographic notes of the last day of the trial and the sentencing proceeding have been lost and no transcript is available for those dates, a reconstruction hearing sufficed to protect defendant’s right to appeal. The judge’s notes from the last day of trial, the prosecutor’s detailed outline of her summation and trial counsel’s affirmation, which were placed in the record at the hearing, provided an adequate basis to determine whether appealable issues existed … . The fact that this was a nonjury trial, where the factfinder is presumed to have disregarded prejudicial matter … , weighs strongly against the concern that the missing minutes may have revealed appealable issues. People v Zuniga, 2017 NY Slip Op 03264, 1st Dept 4-27-17

​

CRIMINAL LAW (LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL)/APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL)/TRANSCRIPT (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL)

SENTENCE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED AS THE RESULT OF AN INVOLUNTARY PLEA.

​The Third Department determined the sentence imposed was not in accordance with the plea agreement. Therefore defendant’s plea was not voluntarily made and must be vacated. Defendant was initially sentenced as a persistent felon and that sentence was overturned on appeal. The plea agreement contemplated sentencing either as a persistent felon, or, if the appeal succeeded, as a second felony offender. After the successful appeal, however, defendant was sentenced as a first-time felon:

​

The People concede, and we agree, that the parties’ plea agreement, as set forth in the record before us, did not contemplate the possibility that defendant would be sentenced as a first-time felony offender in the event of a successful appeal to this Court … . Indeed, the record before us establishes that the parties’ contingent plea agreement and ensuing plea colloquy were limited to whether defendant could be sentenced as a second felony offender — versus sentencing as a mandatory persistent felony offender — upon a successful appeal. Accordingly, because the record reflects a mutual mistake at the time of defendant’s plea regarding his predicate status and potential sentencing exposure in the event that he was successful on appeal, his decision to plead guilty was not a knowing, voluntary and intelligent one and, therefore, the plea must be vacated … . People v Brewington, 2017 NY Slip Op 03224, 3rd Dept 4-27-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED AS THE RESULT OF AN INVOLUNTARY PLEA)/SENTENCING (SENTENCE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED AS THE RESULT OF AN INVOLUNTARY PLEA)/GUILTY PLEAS (SENTENCE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED AS THE RESULT OF AN INVOLUNTARY PLEA)

​

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE AND LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s assault and weapons convictions, determined the defendant’s testimony alleged facts which required that the jury be instructed on the justification defense and the lawful temporary possession of a weapon. Defendant testified he was attacked by the complainant from behind and he grabbed an object from defendant and started swinging at the complainant to protect himself as they rolled on the ground. The fact that defendant did not testify he stabbed the complainant did not preclude the applicability of the justification defense:

​

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was a reasonable view of the evidence that the complainant was the aggressor, that the defendant could not safely retreat, that the defendant’s actions during the fight caused the complainant’s injuries, and that the defendant’s actions were justified. The fact that the defendant did not testify that he stabbed the complainant did not preclude a charge as to a justification defense, since the evidence, viewed as a whole, supported such a charge … . * * *

​

… [W]e agree with the defendant that he was entitled to a jury charge on the defense of temporary and lawful possession of a weapon with respect to that count of the indictment … . Although this contention was not preserved for appellate review, we review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … .

In some circumstances, a person may possess an unlicensed or proscribed weapon and still not be guilty of a crime because of the innocent nature of the possession … . To warrant a jury instruction on the defense of temporary and lawful possession, “there must be proof in the record showing a legal excuse for [the defendant’s possession of] the weapon . . . as well as facts tending to establish that, once possession has been obtained, the weapon had not been used in a dangerous manner” … . A person may be found to have had temporary and lawful possession of a weapon if he or she took the weapon from an assailant in the course of a fight … . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was a reasonable view of the evidence supporting this defense. The defendant testified that he only possessed the knife, if at all, when he attempted to disarm the complainant during the fight. Further, although the defendant’s use of the knife thereafter resulted in the complainant being stabbed, should a jury believe that the defendant’s use of the knife was justified, such use would have been lawful … , and not “utterly at odds with [the defendant’s] claim of innocent possession . . . temporarily and incidentally [resulting] from . . . disarming a wrongful possessor” … . People v Sackey-El, 2017 NY Slip Op 03198, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE AND LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON)/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE AND LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON)/WEAPON, LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE AND LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON)

PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT, WHO RAN, HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, WHEN POLICE TOLD HIM TO STOP, NOT JUSTIFIED, FIREARM AND DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the police did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Therefore the pursuit of the defendant was not justified and the firearm and drugs in his possession should have been suppressed. The police observed the car in which defendant was a passenger make a turn without signaling and roll through a stop sign. As the car was moving at one mile an hour, the defendant got out, holding his waistband. After an officer said “police, stop” defendant ran:

​

“In order to justify police pursuit, the officers must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed'” … . “Police pursuit of an individual significantly impede[s]’ the person’s freedom of movement and thus must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” … . “A suspect’s [f]light alone . . . even [his or her flight] in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might justify a police request for information, is insufficient to justify pursuit'” … . “However, flight, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, could provide the predicate necessary to justify pursuit'” … .

​

Here, the police officers’ observations that the defendant exited a slow moving vehicle and held his waistband did not constitute specific circumstances indicative of criminal activity so as to establish the reasonable suspicion that was necessary to lawfully pursue the defendant, even when coupled with the defendant’s flight from the police … . The People failed to adduce testimony showing, for example, that the police officers observed the defendant in possession of what appeared to be a gun or that the defendant’s conduct in adjusting his waistband was indicative of gun possession … . People v Furrs, 2017 NY Slip Op 03192, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT, WHO RAN WHEN POLICE TOLD HIM TO STOP, NOT JUSTIFIED, FIREARM AND DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT, WHO RAN WHEN POLICE TOLD HIM TO STOP, NOT JUSTIFIED, FIREARM AND DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT, WHO RAN WHEN POLICE TOLD HIM TO STOP, NOT JUSTIFIED, FIREARM AND DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

,

PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the grand jury proceedings were defective because of the prosecutor’s failure to instruct the jury on the defense of common ownership. Defendant testified in the grand jury that the property alleged to have been stolen was jointly owned with the complainant, who was a partner in the business. The conviction was reversed in the interest of justice and the indictment was dismissed:

” [A] prosecutor should instruct the Grand Jury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'” … . If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment… .

Viewing the evidence before the grand jury in the light most favorable to the defendant … , we find that there was a reasonable view of the evidence warranting instructions on the definition of joint or common owner and the defense of claim of right. Penal Law § 155.00(5) provides that “[a] joint or common owner of property shall not be deemed to have a right of possession thereto superior to that of any other joint or common owner thereof.” Consequently, a partner may not be charged with stealing the partnership’s assets from another partner … . Pursuant to Penal Law § 155.15(1) “[i]n any prosecution for larceny committed by trespassory taking or embezzlement, it is an affirmative defense that the property was appropriated under a claim of right made in good faith.” The defendant’s grand jury testimony indicated that the defendant’s relationship with the complaining witness was that of a partner, not an employee … and that the defendant took the funds at issue under a claim of right … . Consequently, the District Attorney’s failure to instruct the grand jury with respect to the definition of joint or common owner and the defense of claim of right so substantially impaired the integrity of the proceedings as to require the dismissal of the indictment … . People v Tunit, 2017 NY Slip Op 03201, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/GRAND JURY (PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/COMMON OWNERSHIP DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)

DEFENDANT NEVER ADMITTED THE PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION AND WAS NEVER PROPERLY NOTIFIED THE PRIOR CONVICTION WOULD BE USED AS A PREDICATE, RESENTENCING REQUIRED.

The First Department determined the flawed procedure leading to sentencing defendant as a second felony offender required remittal for resentencing:

​

… [D]efendant never admitted the prior felony conviction upon which his second violent felony adjudication was predicated, and the court never adjudicated defendant a second violent felony offender. Moreover, there is no record evidence that the predicate felony statement was filed prior to sentencing, as required by CPL 400.15(2) … . Further, the record does not reflect that defendant was given a copy of the predicate felony statement, as CPL 400.15(3) requires. Thus, the record is devoid of any indication that defendant received adequate notice that the prior felony conviction in question would be used as the basis for enhancement of his sentence or had an opportunity to be heard as to the validity of that conviction … . The brief, incidental, logistical comments made by Supreme Court, the clerk and the prosecutor in defendant’s presence during the plea proceedings concerning the existence of a predicate felony statement are insufficient to constitute substantial compliance with CPL 400.15 requirements … . People v Traylor, 2017 NY Slip Op 03111, 1st Dept 4-25-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT NEVER ADMITTED THE PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION AND WAS NEVER PROPERLY NOTIFIED THE PRIOR CONVICTION WOULD BE USED AS A PREDICATE, RESENTENCING REQUIRED)/SECOND FELONY ADJUDICATION (DEFENDANT NEVER ADMITTED THE PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION AND WAS NEVER PROPERLY NOTIFIED THE PRIOR CONVICTION WOULD BE USED AS A PREDICATE, RESENTENCING REQUIRED)

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