You are here: / Criminal Law

GUILTY PLEA INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE VACATED.

The Second Department vacated defendant’s conviction because the guilty plea was induced by an unfulfilled promise:

In June 2013, the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant was advised that if he failed to complete a Mental Health Court program, the court would sentence him to a term of imprisonment on his plea of guilty to attempted assault in the second degree, and that his plea of guilty to assault in the third degree would be vacated. The defendant did not successfully complete the program. At sentencing, however, instead of vacating the defendant’s plea of guilty to assault in the third degree, the County Court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment upon that plea, to run concurrently with the term of imprisonment imposed on his conviction of attempted assault in the second degree.

“[A] guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored”… .  People v Rohan, 2016 NY Slip Op 08251, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE VACATED)/SENTENCING (GUILTY PLEA INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE VACATED)

,

THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES.

The First Department determined defendant was not deprived of his right to call his codefendant as a witness. Although he strongly expressed his wish to do so, defense counsel properly exercised professional judgment in deciding against calling the witness:

“If defense counsel solely defers to a defendant, without exercising his or her professional judgment, on a decision that is for the attorney, not the accused, to make because it is not fundamental, the defendant is deprived of the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him or her” … . Whether to call a witness is a strategic decision to be made by defense counsel … . Moreover, counsel had a sound reason for not calling the codefendant, who, in his plea allocution, had implicated defendant in the drug sale. To the extent defendant is claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, that claim is likewise without merit … . People v Sheard, 2016 NY Slip Op 08186, 1st Dept 12-6-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL, THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES)

, ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL.

The First Department determined defendant was entitled to hearing on his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction. Defendant alleged he was erroneously told he would not be deported if he pled guilty to a drug sale, but could be deported if convicted after trial:

This case presents factual issues requiring a hearing into whether defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel under People v McDonald (1 NY3d 109 [2003]) by way of erroneous and prejudicial immigration advice. Defendant alleges that his attorney erroneously advised him that if he pleaded guilty to a drug sale count with a sentence of probation, he would not be subject to deportation, but if he refused the plea offer, proceeded to trial and lost, he would go to prison and then be deported. Defendant’s claim is corroborated, to some extent, by statements made to present counsel by the attorney who represented defendant at the time of the plea … . The standard “no other promises” disclaimer in defendant’s plea allocution does not, as a matter of law, defeat his claim of erroneous legal advice. This case warrants a hearing at which defendant may establish the advice he actually received regarding the deportation consequences of his plea. …

This case also warrants a hearing on the prejudice prong of defendant’s claim. Defendant made a sufficient showing to raise an issue of fact as to whether he could have rationally rejected the plea offer under all the circumstances of the case, including the serious consequences of deportation and his incentive to remain in the United States … . Further, defendant sufficiently alleges that if immigration consequences had been factored into the plea bargaining process, counsel might have been able to negotiate a different plea agreement that would not have resulted in automatic deportation. People v Santos, 2016 NY Slip Op 08169, 1st Dept 12-6-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)/INEFFECTICE ASSISTANCE (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)

,

MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED, AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

The Third Department reversed defendant’s murder conviction, finding it against the weight of the evidence. The victim, who died from blunt force trauma to the abdomen, was defendant’s two-year-old son. The forensic evidence placed the time of the injury during a period when defendant was not home. Contradictions in witness testimony rendered it too weak to support the conviction. The Third Department went through the trial evidence in detail. The evidence cannot be fairly summarized here. People v Taft, 2016 NY Slip Op 08123, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

CRIMINAL LAW (MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED, AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED, AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED, AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SEVER AT TRIAL AFTER AN ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSE WAS PURSUED BY THE CO-DEFENDANT.

The Second Department, reversing the conviction, determined the defense attorney’s failure to move to sever the defendant’s trial from the co-defendant’s and request a missing witness charge constituted ineffective assistance. The need for severance became apparent during the trial when counsel for the co-defendant pursued a defense antagonistic to that of the defendant. The court noted the motion for severance can be made any time before the end of the trial when the defendant could not previously have been aware of the basis for it:

Where a defendant claims prejudice as a result of a joint trial because his defense is antagonistic to that of a codefendant, “severance is not required solely because of hostility between the parties, differences in their trial strategies or inconsistencies in their defenses” … . However, “severance is compelled where the core of each defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other and where there is a significant danger, as both defenses are portrayed to the trial court, that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer defendant’s guilt” … . Thus, severance should be granted where the defenses are not only antagonistic, but also mutually exclusive and irreconcilable … . Although a severance motion must generally be made before the commencement of trial … , CPL 255.20(3) permits a pretrial motion to be made and decided “at any time before the end of trial” when “the defendant could not, with due diligence, have been previously aware” of the basis for the motion. CPL 255.20(3) further provides that the court may, “in the interest of justice, and for good cause shown,” entertain and dispose of a pretrial motion “at any time before sentence.” People v Davydov, 2016 NY Slip Op 08090, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SEVER AT TRIAL AFTER AN ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSE WAS PURSUED BY THE CO-DEFENDANT)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SEVER AT TRIAL AFTER AN ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSE WAS PURSUED BY THE CO-DEFENDANT)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SEVER AT TRIAL AFTER AN ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSE WAS PURSUED BY THE CO-DEFENDANT)/SEVERANCE, MOTION FOR (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SEVER AT TRIAL AFTER AN ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSE WAS PURSUED BY THE CO-DEFENDANT)

,

CIVIL MATTER PROPERLY STAYED UNTIL RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER RESOLVED, DISCRETIONARY CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly stayed a civil matter after the defendant was indicted in a related criminal matter and indicated he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent if the civil matter went forward:

A motion pursuant to CPLR 2201 to stay a civil action pending resolution of a related criminal action is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court … . “Factors to consider include avoiding the risk of inconsistent adjudications, [duplication] of proof and potential waste of judicial resources. A compelling factor is a situation where a defendant will invoke his or her constitutional right against self incrimination” … . “Although the pendency of a criminal proceeding does not give rise to an absolute right under the United States or New York State Constitutions to a stay of a related civil proceeding . . . there is no question but that the court may exercise its discretion to stay proceedings in a civil action until a related criminal dispute is resolved” … .

Here, this action and the criminal proceeding against Samuel arise from the same facts. While a stay may cause inconvenience and delay to the plaintiffs, the failure to grant the stay would cause Samuel to “suffer the severe prejudice of being deprived of a defense” … . Moreover, a prior determination in the criminal proceeding could have collateral estoppel effect in this action, thereby simplifying the issues … . Mook v Homesafe Am., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08054, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CIVIL MATTER PROPERLY STAYED UNTIL RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER RESOLVED)/CRIMINAL LAW (CIVIL MATTER PROPERLY STAYED UNTIL RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER RESOLVED)

,

UNDER THE FACTS, ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S FACEBOOK COMMENT AND GANG AFFILIATION AS SANDOVAL EVIDENCE.

Although the errors were deemed harmless, the Second Department noted that allowing, as Sandoval evidence, a comment posted by defendant on Facebook and evidence of defendant’s gang affiliation was improper under the facts:

The Supreme Court erred, in its Sandoval ruling … , in permitting the People to elicit testimony from the defendant regarding a comment posted on his Facebook page, since the comment was not probative of the defendant’s credibility … . The Supreme Court further erred in permitting the People to elicit testimony from certain witnesses regarding the defendant’s alleged gang affiliation and involvement in a prior violent incident. Contrary to the People’s contention and the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the defendant did not introduce evidence that could properly be construed as character evidence and, thus, it was improper to permit the People to elicit evidence as to the defendant’s alleged prior bad acts on that basis … . In addition, the Supreme Court improperly modified its Sandoval ruling by permitting the prosecutor to question the defendant regarding his alleged gang affiliation and the prior violent incident, as the defendant did not “open the door” to the otherwise precluded evidence … . People v Borgella, 2016 NY Slip Op 07972, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (UNDER THE FACTS, ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S FACEBOOK COMMENT AND GANG AFFILIATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SANDOVAL, UNDER THE FACTS, ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S FACEBOOK COMMENT AND GANG AFFILIATION)/SANDOVAL (UNDER THE FACTS, ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S FACEBOOK COMMENT AND GANG AFFILIATION)

,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT WHICH ALLEGED THE OFFICER FABRICATED A WEAPONS CHARGE.

The Second Department determined prohibiting the cross-examination of a police officer about a federal lawsuit which alleged the officer fabricated a weapons charged was reversible error. Defendant was arrested by the officer and charged with possession of a weapon allegedly found by the officer in the seat of the car where defendant was sitting:

The Court of Appeals has held that law enforcement witnesses should be treated in the same manner as any other prosecution witness for purposes of cross-examination and that civil allegations of misconduct in a federal lawsuit filed against a law enforcement agent are favorable to a defendant as impeachment evidence insofar as such allegations bear on a law enforcement officer’s credibility as a witness … . Furthermore, there is no prohibition against cross-examining a witness, including a police officer, about bad acts that have never been formally proven at a trial … .

In cross-examining a law enforcement witness, the same standard for good faith basis and specific allegations relevant to credibility applies, as does the same broad latitude to preclude or limit cross-examination … . Counsel must first present a good faith basis for inquiring, namely the lawsuit relied upon. Second, specific allegations from the lawsuit that are relevant to the credibility of the law enforcement witness must be identified. Third, the trial judge must exercise discretion in assessing whether inquiry into such allegations would confuse or mislead the jury, or create a substantial risk of undue prejudice to the parties … . People v Enoe, 2016 NY Slip Op 07977, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT WHICH ALLEGED THE OFFICER FABRICATED A WEAPONS CHARGE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT WHICH ALLEGED THE OFFICER FABRICATED A WEAPONS CHARGE)/POLICE OFFICERS (CROSS-EXAMINATION, (DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT WHICH ALLEGED THE OFFICER FABRICATED A WEAPONS CHARGE)

, ,

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW (REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY), REQUEST FOR ACCOMPLICE INSTRUCTION DURING JURY DELIBERATIONS PRESERVED THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the jury should have been instructed a witness (Perkins) was an accomplice as a matter of law. The defendant was charged and convicted of tampering with evidence (attempting to dispose of a jacket allegedly worn when defendant committed murder). It was alleged defendant instructed Perkins to get rid of his boots. The court noted that defendant’s request for the instruction, made during deliberations in response to a jury note, preserved the issue for appeal:

… [I]t is well settled that, “to be an accomplice for corroboration purposes, the witness must somehow be criminally implicated and potentially subject to prosecution for the conduct or factual transaction related to the crime[] for which the defendant is on trial” … . Thus, “a ‘witness is an accomplice as a matter of law only if the jury could reasonably reach no other conclusion but that he [or she] participated in the offense charged or an offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged'” … .

Perkins’ testimony established that she picked defendant up at the same location that the jacket was later found and she subsequently disposed of defendant’s boots pursuant to his direction. In addition, she was arrested the same day as defendant, was charged with a felony, entered into a cooperation agreement with the People and, pursuant to that agreement, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in exchange for her truthful testimony against defendant. When defendant requested the accomplice charge, he stated that Perkins had pleaded guilty to “obstructing governmental administration . . . in exchange for not being prosecuted for tampering.” In light of this, we find that Perkins was an accomplice as a matter of law “since [s]he could have been (and was) charged with a crime ‘based upon some of the same facts or conduct’ upon which the charge[] against defendant [was] based” … . People v Whyte, 2016 NY Slip Op 07880, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW (REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY), REQUEST FOR ACCOMPLICE INSTRUCTION DURING JURY DELIBERATIONS PRESEVED THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW (REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY), REQUEST FOR ACCOMPLICE INSTRUCTION DURING JURY DELIBERATIONS PRESEVED THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, REQUEST FOR ACCOMPLICE INSTRUCTION DURING JURY DELIBERATIONS PRESEVED THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL)

,

CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge did not use the right criteria in denying defendant’s request to represent himself:

County Court inquired into defendant’s background, emphasized the importance of having counsel represent him, cautioned against the dangers of representing himself and tested defendant’s skill as an advocate with several evidentiary questions. The issue, however, is not the extent of defendant’s legal knowledge, but his capacity to knowingly waive the right to counsel … . In denying the request, County Court essentially ruled that it was not in defendant’s best interest and that the application was untimely, without expressly addressing defendant’s capacity to waive his right to counsel. Since defendant’s request was made prior to the commencement of trial, it was unquestionably timely … . Moreover, we are satisfied that defendant, who informed the court that he had obtained his GED and engaged in paralegal studies for a year, and was described by the court as “bright” and “articulate,” competently, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to the counsel. People v Poulos, 2016 NY Slip Op 07879, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/PRO SE CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)

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