You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Fourth Department, in the interest of justice, reversed defendant’s conviction based upon prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object to the prosecutor’s remarks in summation and failure to object to evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts for which no admissibility ruling was sought):

Here, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during her closing statement by repeatedly appealing to the jury’s sympathy, asking the jury to do justice and protect the victim by convicting defendant, bolstering the victim’s credibility and injecting the prosecutor’s personal opinions into the trial. Perhaps most egregiously, in arguing that the jury should reject defendant’s testimony that he confessed falsely to the police because he needed to use the bathroom, the prosecutor gave her personal opinion regarding defendant’s credibility by stating that she would sit in her own urine rather than falsely admit that she committed a crime. “We can only conclude herein that the prosecutor’s inflammatory [comments had] a decided tendency to prejudice the jury against the defendant’ “… . Consequently, we conclude that the cumulative effect of the prosecutorial misconduct, which substantially prejudiced defendant’s rights … , requires reversal.

Furthermore, “[i]n light of the foregoing, we agree with defendant’s related contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel owing to defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s misconduct during summation” … . Defense counsel also failed to object when the prosecutor introduced evidence of prior bad acts despite having failed to seek a ruling regarding the admissibility thereof, most notably the testimony of a sheriff’s deputy that, months before this incident, defendant stole the victim’s truck and was arrested for driving it while intoxicated while on the way to attack a person with whom he believed the victim was having an affair. Defense counsel also failed to object when the prosecutor cross-examined defendant regarding that issue. Thus, reversal is also required because defense counsel was ineffective in “fail[ing] to object to prejudicial evidence of prior uncharged crimes and bad acts introduced by the prosecutor” … . People v Case, 2017 NY Slip Op 03638, 4th Dept 5-5-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR BAD ACTS, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/PRIOR BAD ACTS (FAILURE TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR BAD ACTS, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)

,

A WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED FOR DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO SIGN THE WRITTEN WAIVER.

The Fourth Department noted that the sentencing court did not have the power to enhance defendant’s sentence for refusing to sign a waiver of appeal because the plea agreement did not call for a written waiver:

While waiving the right to appeal was a condition of the plea bargain, the execution of a written waiver was not, and thus the court was not empowered to enhance the sentence on that ground … . We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the term of imprisonment from a determinate term of 25 years to a determinate term of 20 years, and the period of postrelease supervision from 5 years to 2½ years, in accordance with the plea agreement. People v Days, 2017 NY Slip Op 03632, 4th Dept 5-5-17

CRIMINAL LAW (A WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED FOR DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO SIGN THE WRITTEN WAIVER)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER, A WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED FOR DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO SIGN THE WRITTEN WAIVER)/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, A WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED FOR DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO SIGN THE WRITTEN WAIVER)

,

RUNNING A DMV DATABASE SEARCH FOR A VEHICLE’S PLATE NUMBER IS NOT A SEARCH, THEREFORE THE DMV CHECK CAN BE RUN WITHOUT ANY ARTICULABLE REASON FOR STOPPING A VEHICLE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined that a police officer’s observation of a license plate and running the registration number through the Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV’s) database is not a search. Here the officer did not observe any violation that warranted stopping defendant’s car. When the officer ran the plate number he learned defendant’s registration had been suspended due to unpaid parking tickets. The stop was for that reason alone. The officer ultimately arrested the defendant for Driving While Intoxicated:

As defendant concedes, a driver does not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in the license plate number itself, nor would any expectation in such publicly exposed information be recognized as reasonable by society. We now conclude that a driver has no expectation of privacy in the DMV database information associated with a license plate number. Our Vehicle and Traffic Law provides a comprehensive set of requirements for lawfully operating a vehicle in the State of New York.  * * *

While “a police officer may [not] stop an automobile, arbitrarily chosen from the stream of traffic on a public highway only because of the unusual but irrelevant appearance of the vehicle, solely to examine the motorist’s license and registration” … , defendant’s freedom of movement was never “stopped” until after the officer ran his license plate and obtained probable cause to believe the vehicle was being operated with a suspended registration. We prohibit arbitrary traffic stops because they constitute unreasonable “seizures” of persons in violation of the constitution … . But here, the stop of defendant’s car occurred only after the check had supplied the officer a reason to do so. And while we are mindful of the concerns about license plate checks, “the possibilities of database error and police officer abuse, while real, do not create a legitimate expectation of privacy where none existed before. Government actions do not become Fourth Amendment searches simply because they might be carried out improperly. If an officer does go outside the proper bounds of a license plate search, it is that misconduct that might give rise to a constitutional or statutory violation” … .  People v Bushey, 2017 NY Slip Op 03560, CtApp 5-4-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (RUNNING A DMV DATABASE SEARCH FOR A VEHICLE’S PLATE NUMBER IS NOT A SEARCH, THEREFORE THE DMV CHECK CAN BE RUN WITHOUT ANY ARTICULABLE REASON FOR STOPPING A VEHICLE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RUNNING A DMV DATABASE SEARCH FOR A VEHICLE’S PLATE NUMBER IS NOT A SEARCH, THEREFORE THE DMV CHECK CAN BE RUN WITHOUT ANY ARTICULABLE REASON FOR STOPPING A VEHICLE)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE RUNNING A DMV DATABASE SEARCH FOR A VEHICLE’S PLATE NUMBER IS NOT A SEARCH, THEREFORE THE DMV CHECK CAN BE RUN WITHOUT ANY ARTICULABLE REASON FOR STOPPING A VEHICLE)/SUPPRESSION (RUNNING A DMV DATABASE SEARCH FOR A VEHICLE’S PLATE NUMBER IS NOT A SEARCH, THEREFORE THE DMV CHECK CAN BE RUN WITHOUT ANY ARTICULABLE REASON FOR STOPPING A VEHICLE)/STREET STOPS (RUNNING A DMV DATABASE SEARCH FOR A VEHICLE’S PLATE NUMBER IS NOT A SEARCH, THEREFORE THE DMV CHECK CAN BE RUN WITHOUT ANY ARTICULABLE REASON FOR STOPPING A VEHICLE)/REGISTRATION NUMBER (VEHICLES, CRIMINAL LAW, RUNNING A DMV DATABASE SEARCH FOR A VEHICLE’S PLATE NUMBER IS NOT A SEARCH, THEREFORE THE DMV CHECK CAN BE RUN WITHOUT ANY ARTICULABLE REASON FOR STOPPING A VEHICLE)/DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DATABASE CHECK OF VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBER, RUNNING A DMV DATABASE SEARCH FOR A VEHICLE’S PLATE NUMBER IS NOT A SEARCH, THEREFORE THE DMV CHECK CAN BE RUN WITHOUT ANY ARTICULABLE REASON FOR STOPPING A VEHICLE)

,

ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY PRESERVED THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that, although testimony by a detective about a phone conversation with defendant’s wife (who had since recanted and avoided testifying) violated defendant’s right to confront witnesses, the diluted strength of the phone-call evidence coupled with the striking of the detective’s testimony preserved the fairness of the trial. Defendant’s wife was a witness to the stabbing of the victim. The victim knew the defendant and identified him as the attacker. Defendant’s wife first told the police defendant was the attacker but later recanted and she could not be found at the time of trial. The detective’s testimony did not identify the wife as the person he talked to on the phone but the jury could have inferred it was she and that she identified the defendant as the attacker. However, since the detective had also talked to the victim, the jury could also have inferred it was the victim’s statement that led the detective to the defendant:

Here, the detective did not expressly state that the wife was a witness and that she had identified defendant as the attacker. While the testimony supported an inference to that effect, there was another countervailing inference —— as discussed above, the detective may have identified defendant as a suspect based on information provided by the victim to the police at the hospital and passed on to the detective once he took the case, but before the detective spoke to the wife. This inference also flowed logically from the victim’s testimony that the wife was with the victim when he was attacked by defendant, particularly because the jury heard this testimony immediately before the detective testified. As such, the jury could reasonably infer that the police knew about the wife from the victim and that his statements, relayed to the detective during the briefing from the Night Watch Unit, led the police to treat defendant as a suspect. Given this context, the testimony was neither powerfully incriminating nor, as the defendant argues, did it alone transform the entire case from that in which the People presented a single eyewitness to a case with two eyewitnesses identifying defendant as the perpetrator. People v Stone, 2017 NY Slip Op 03559, CtApp 5-4-17

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY PRESERVED THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY PRESERVED THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY PRESERVED THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL)/CONFRONTATION, RIGHT OF (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY PRESERVED THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL)

,

WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the warrantless search of a parolee’s empty car and seizure of a firearm by police officers was lawful. Defendant parolee argued only a parole officer, not a police officer, could conduct a lawful search. The Court of Appeals held that a parolee’s reduced expectation of privacy applied irrespective of whether a parole or police officer conducted the search:

In Huntley [43 NY2d 175, 181 …] we distinguished between parole officers and police officers, noting that searches that may be reasonably justified if undertaken by a parole officer are not necessarily constitutional if undertaken by a police officer … . Nevertheless, we concomitantly observed that, “in any evaluation of the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure,” whether undertaken by parole or police officers, “the fact of defendant’s status as a parolee is always relevant and may be critical” … .

On the facts presented here, Huntley does not compel the conclusion that the search was unconstitutional … . The detectives had a high degree of individualized suspicion based on a tip from a known individual — who correctly identified defendant’s vehicle and its location — indicating that defendant had a firearm in his vehicle, the recent arrival of which was corroborated by the absence of the vehicle during the detectives’ earlier visit and the warmth of the hood. In light of this tip, taken together with defendant’s reduced expectation of privacy, there is support in the record for the conclusion that the search of defendant’s vehicle was lawful and reasonable … . People v McMillan, 2017 NY Slip Op 03446, CtApp 5-2-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, (WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER)/PAROLEES (REDUCED EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER)

,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE’S CASE TO PROVE INTENT.

The Court of appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined that even though defendant relied solely on the prosecution's evidence to raise the agency defense to the charged drug sale, Molineux evidence of defendant's prior conviction for a drug sale was admissible in the People's direct case to prove intent:

… [D]efendant plainly raised the issue of his intent and particular role in the drug sale as a salesman based on his arguments to the jury at trial, his cross-examination of the People's witnesses, and his specific request for an agency charge to the jury. The trial court then conducted the proper balancing analysis, determining that it would permit introduction of only one of defendant's prior convictions. Under these circumstances, the People were properly permitted by the trial court to use the admissible evidence of defendant's prior drug sale conviction on the issue of intent in their case-in-chief … . People v Valentin, 2017 NY Slip Op 03444, CtApp 5-2-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE'S CASE TO PROVE INTENT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE'S CASE TO PROVE INTENT)/AGENCY DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE'S CASE TO PROVE INTENT)/MOLINEUX EVIDENCE (EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE'S CASE TO PROVE INTENT)

JUDGE’S FIRST AGREEING WITH PROSECUTION’S REQUEST NOT TO CHARGE THE JURY WITH CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AND THEN GIVING THE CHARGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant's conviction, in a very brief memorandum, determined the trial judge's decision not to charge the jury with constructive possession and then giving the charge was not harmless error:

Although we reject defendant's contention that the evidence presented at trial did not support a charge of constructive possession, we nevertheless conclude that defendant is entitled to a new trial. The trial court erred in that it agreed to the People's request at the charge conference not to charge the jury on constructive possession, but then ultimately provided a constructive possession charge to the jury, resulting in prejudice to defendant … . People v Smalling, 2017 NY Slip Op 03442, CtApp 5-2-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE'S FIRST AGREEING WITH PROSECUTION'S REQUEST NOT TO CHARGE THE JURY WITH CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AND THEN GIVING THE CHARGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE'S FIRST AGREEING WITH PROSECUTION'S REQUEST NOT TO CHARGE THE JURY WITH CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AND THEN GIVING THE CHARGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/JURY INSTRUCTION (CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE'S FIRST AGREEING WITH PROSECUTION'S REQUEST NOT TO CHARGE THE JURY WITH CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AND THEN GIVING THE CHARGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)

, ,

CHANGE OF VENUE TO ALLOW PETITIONER’S MOTHER TO TESTIFY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner sex offender’s motion for a change of venue for the annual review of his civil commitment under Article 10 should have been granted. The change was sought to allow petitioner’s mother to testify:

​

In this annual review proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09, petitioner appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied that part of his motion seeking a change of venue to New York County for the convenience of witnesses … . Petitioner was previously determined to be a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement and confined to a secure treatment facility … . He is currently confined at the Central New York Psychiatric Center in Oneida County. We now grant that part of the motion seeking a change of venue.

The court may change the venue of an annual review proceeding” to any county for good cause, which may include considerations relating to the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the condition of the [confined sex offender]’ ” … . We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying his motion inasmuch as the proposed testimony of his mother, who lives in New York County, is “relevant to the issue of whether petitioner remained a dangerous sex offender in need of confinement” … . Although respondent correctly notes that the subjects of the mother’s proposed testimony also may be the subjects of expert testimony, “[t]he pertinent question is whether a witness—expert or lay—has material and relevant evidence to offer on the issues to be resolved” … . We agree with petitioner that his mother’s proposed testimony concerning his stated goals and priorities, likely living arrangements, and the availability and extent of a familial support system in the event of release, is material and relevant to the issue whether he “is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” … . Matter of Charada T. v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 03379, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, CHANGE OF VENUE TO ALLOW PETITIONER’S MOTHER TO TESTIFY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CHANGE OF VENUE TO ALLOW PETITIONER’S MOTHER TO TESTIFY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL COMMITMENT (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CHANGE OF VENUE TO ALLOW PETITIONER’S MOTHER TO TESTIFY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/VENUE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CHANGE OF VENUE TO ALLOW PETITIONER’S MOTHER TO TESTIFY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication should not have been used to calculate his risk level under risk factor 9:

​

Defendant was assessed 15 points under risk factor 9 for a prior crime as a juvenile delinquent, and the court, relying on People v Catchings (56 AD3d 1181 … , rejected defendant’s challenge to the assessment of points under risk factor 9. As we recently held in People v Brown (148 AD3d 1705, ___), however, a juvenile delinquency adjudication may not be considered a crime for purposes of assessing points in a SORA determination, and Catchings should no longer be followed to that extent. Consequently, we conclude that the court erred in considering defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication in assessing 15 points under risk factor 9.

Removing the improperly assessed points under risk factor 9 renders defendant a presumptive level two risk. Under the circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings to determine whether an upward departure is warranted … . People v Gibson, 2017 NY Slip Op 03355, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA)  (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION (SORA, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9)

, ,

JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE.

The Fourth Department, in an original Article 78 proceeding, determined the judge was prohibited from imposing on defendant a sentence of probation. Defendant was sentenced to 30 days in jail. Outside the defendant’s presence the sentencing judge signed an order imposing a five-year probationary period and defendant agreed to the order by signing it in jail:

​

While a court possesses the inherent authority to correct a mistake or error in a criminal defendant’s sentence … , the process by which a court corrects such an error is by resentencing the defendant … , which must be done in the defendant’s presence (see CPL 380.40 [1]). We thus conclude that the Judge erred in imposing an additional component to the sentence outside of petitioner’s presence …

We further conclude that petitioner cannot now be resentenced. It is well settled that, “where a defendant is released from custody and returns to the community after serving the period of incarceration that was ordered by the sentencing court, and the time to appeal the sentence has expired or the appeal has been finally determined,’ a legitimate expectation of the original sentence’s finality arises and double jeopardy precludes the modification of that sentence to include a period of” probation … . Here, ,,, petitioner has completed serving the period of incarceration and has been released from custody. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal, and the time within which to do so has expired … . Although petitioner, as of this writing, could still move for an extension of time to take an appeal … , he cannot be forced to do so. We thus conclude that petitioner’s sentence is “beyond the court’s authority,” and an additional component to that sentence cannot be imposed … . Matter of Brandon v Doran, 2017 NY Slip Op 03371, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78, PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/JUDGES (ARTICLE 78, PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/SENTENCING (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)

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