You are here: / Criminal Law

FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURES FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED.”

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to follow the statutory procedures for sentencing a persistent felony offender required that the motion to set aside the sentence be granted:

CPL 400.15 and 400.16 “govern the procedure that must be followed in any case where it appears that a defendant who stands convicted of a violent felony offense . . . has previously been subjected to two or more predicate violent felony convictions . . . and may be a persistent violent felony offender” (CPL 400.16[1]). Here, neither the People nor the Supreme Court complied with that mandatory procedure. Therefore, the sentence was “illegally imposed” (CPL 440.20[1]), regardless of whether the defendant is, in fact, a persistent violent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.08[1]), and the Supreme Court should have granted the motion to set aside the sentence … . People v Rivera, 2016 NY Slip Op 07036, 2nd Dept 10-26-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED”)/SENTENCING (FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED”)/PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED”)

,

FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined defense counsel’s failure to argue, in a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, that the People did not act with due diligence in seeking DNA test results was not demonstrated to constitute ineffective assistance:

On this record, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the argument that the People were not acting with due diligence, as there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the People were not diligent in requesting DNA testing on the evidence or that the manner in which the DNA testing was conducted by [the medical examiner] was inconsistent with standard laboratory protocols. In addition, at the time of defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion, there already was Appellate Division authority holding that the period of time needed to obtain the results of DNA testing could be excluded from speedy trial computation as an exceptional circumstance … . People v Henderson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06938, CtApp 10-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/DNA TESTING (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/SPEEDY TRIAL (FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE

,

PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reaffirmed its precedent allowing voluntary statements made after Miranda rights have been invoked to be used to impeach should the defendant take the stand:

This Court has long held that if a statement made by the defendant to the police is voluntary, it may be used for impeachment purposes; but if a statement is involuntary, it will not be admissible, even if it may be deemed reliable … . * * *

Here, County Court determined that the statements were voluntary and the Appellate Division affirmed that determination. …  …[T]here is nothing in the record to support defendant’s contention that [the interrogating officer] consciously circumvented defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights or otherwise rendered defendant’s statements involuntary as a matter of law. Thus, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to preclude the People from utilizing the statements on cross-examination or rebuttal. People v Wilson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06942, CtApp 10-25-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED)/EVIDENCE PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED)/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED

RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY (ENTRY OF DWELLING) CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant should not have been convicted of burglary (entry of a “dwelling”) because the residential area of the building could not be accessed from where he entered:

Under the narrow circumstances of this case, application of the general rule as to what constitutes a dwelling in a mixed residential and commercial building within the meaning of Penal Law § 140.00 (2) is not warranted. Defendant, from a public sidewalk, entered the open cellar doors into a basement that was both entirely disconnected from the building and completely inaccessible to the residences in that building. The basement was not contiguous to any residential units. * * * …[T]he deli basement was both inaccessible to, and remote from, the residential apartments. It was inaccessible because defendant could not go anywhere into the building from the basement. He could not reach the deli or the apartments. All that he could reach from the basement was the public sidewalk. The basement was remote given that it was not used by the residents for any purposes and that there was no proof of any relationship between that space and the residents. In sum, there was no “close contiguity” … between the basement and the dwellings. Under these facts, “the special dangers inherent in the burglary of a dwelling do not exist” … . People v Joseph, 2016 NY Slip Op 06945, CtApp 10-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY CONVICTION REVERSED)/BURGLARY (RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY CONVICTION REVERSED)/DWELLING (BURGLARY, (RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY CONVICTION REVERSED)

,

PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, affirming the dismissal of the attempted first degree murder indictment on speedy trial grounds, determined the People did not act with due diligence in seeking DNA test results. DNA had been recovered from the gun involved. A DNA swab was not taken from the defendant until nine months after indictment:

The time to conduct DNA testing and to produce a DNA report may, under certain circumstances, be excluded from speedy trial computation as an exceptional circumstance. To invoke the exclusion provided in CPL 30.30 (4) (g), however, the People must exercise due diligence in obtaining the evidence. If the exclusion “is to be given reasonable effect and [] is to fulfill the legislative purpose, [it] must be limited to instances in which the prosecution’s inability to proceed is justified by the purposes of the investigation and credible, vigorous activity in pursuing it” … . In addition, while we have recognized that “‘[t]here is no precise definition of what constitutes an exceptional circumstance under CPL 30.30 (4) (g),'” we have stated “that the range of the term’s application is limited by the dominant legislative intent informing CPL 30.30, namely, to discourage prosecutorial inaction” … .

Here, as a result of the People’s inaction in obtaining defendant’s DNA exemplar, the 161-day period of delay to test the DNA and to produce the DNA report was not excludable from speedy trial computation as an exceptional circumstance. People v Clarke, 2016 NY Slip Op 06939, CtApp 10-25-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS)/ SPEEDY TRIAL (PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS)/DNA TESTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS)

, ,

JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S MURDER TRIAL.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a reporter (Robles) who interviewed defendant could not be compelled to testify at the defendant’s murder trial and could not be compelled to turn over her interview notes. The information gathered by the reporter was not “critical or necessary” to the People’s case:

In People v Bonie (141 AD3d 401 [1st Dept 2016], lv dismissed 28 NY3d 956 [2016]), a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, we found that the outtakes of an interview of the defendant taken at a detention center in which he discussed, inter alia, the charges against him and his relationship with the victim were ” critical or necessary’ to the People’s effort to prove motive, intent, and consciousness of guilt, since they contradict[ed] defendant’s earlier statements to police” … . In contrast, in this case, the People have a videotaped confession by the defendant that has been found admissible at trial and that includes statements consistent with other evidence in the case. Under the circumstances, and in keeping with “the consistent tradition in this State of providing the broadest possible protection to the sensitive role of gathering and disseminating news of public events'” … , we find that the People have not made a “clear and specific showing” that the disclosure sought from Robles (her testimony and interview notes) is “critical or necessary” to the People’s proof of a material issue so as to overcome the qualified protection for the journalist’s nonconfidential material (Civil Rights Law § 79-h[c]). People v Juarez, 2016 NY Slip Op 06900, 1st Dept 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S MURDER TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S MURDER TRIAL)/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S MURDER TRIAL)/JOURNALISTS (JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S MURDER TRIAL)

, , ,

SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE.

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s risk level assessment, determined defendant was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the assessment of points:

A defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned to him or her so as to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to that assessment … . Not only did County Court fail to give defendant notice of its intention to sua sponte assess points for the category of use of violence, it affirmatively misled defendant by its assurance that it had already “made a decision . . . regarding a point score,” which included no assignment of points for that risk factor. Accordingly, defendant was denied due process … . Considering the fact that defendant was never aware of the potential of the assignment of such points until a point in time where he no longer had an opportunity to object — his only remaining opportunity to be heard being explicitly limited to arguing for a downward departure — he need not have taken any further action to preserve the issue for our review … . People v Griest, 2016 NY Slip Op 06907, 33rd Dept 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE)/APPEALS (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE, NO FURTHER ACTION NECESSARY TO PRESERVE ISSUE FOR APPEAL)

,

NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s grand larceny conviction, determined there was insufficient evidence defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of his all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Defendant planned to return the ATV in exchange for return of his tools:

Larcenous intent is the “intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person” … . The terms “deprive” and “appropriate” are both essential to larcenous intent and refer to a purpose “to exert permanent or virtually permanent control over the property taken, or to cause permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the possession and use thereof” … . For this reason, “[t]he mens rea element of larceny is simply not satisfied by an intent to temporarily take property without the owner’s permission” … . The proof introduced at trial supported the singular reasonable conclusion that defendant was executing a plan to temporarily deprive the tenant of the ATV in order to force him to return defendant’s missing tools … . People v Drouin, 2016 NY Slip Op 06906, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED)/LARCENY (NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED)

COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ALCOHOL-MONITORING BRACELET.

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court did not have the statutory authority to require defendant to pay for a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring (SCRAM) bracelet. Therefore revoking defendant’s probation and imposing a prison sentence based on defendant’s failure to make payments was error:

… [W]e are compelled to find “that County Court did not have statutory authority for requiring [defendant] to pay for the cost of the electronic monitoring program” … . While County Court can require a defendant to submit to the use of an electronic monitoring device if it determines that such a condition would advance public safety (see Penal Law § 65.10 [4]), it could not require a defendant to pay the costs associated with such monitoring since such costs do not fall within the category of restitution, but are more in the nature of a law enforcement expense … . People v Hakes, 2016 NY Slip Op 06905, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ALCOHOL-MONITORING BRACELET)/SCRAM BRACELET (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ALCOHOL-MONITORING BRACELET)

, ,

ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539.

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE.

The Court of Appeals determined evidence which was originally generated in electronic form was admissible under CPLR 4518 (a) and CPLR 4539 (b) applies only to documents originally in hard copy and subsequently scanned into digital form. The document in question was a record of testing of the simulator solution used during an alcohol breath test:

County Court correctly held that the applicable statute is CPLR 4518 (a), which was amended in 2002 (see L 2002, ch 136, § 1) to provide that an “electronic record . . . shall be admissible in a tangible exhibit that is a true and accurate representation of such electronic record” (CPLR 4518 [a]). The statute further provides that the court “may consider the method or manner by which the electronic record was stored, maintained or retrieved in determining whether the exhibit is a true and accurate representation of such electronic record,” but “[a]ll other circumstances of the making of the memorandum or record. . . may be proved to affect its weight,” and “shall not affect its admissibility” (id. [emphasis added]).

The 2002 amendment to CPLR 4518 (a) was adopted by the legislature upon the recommendation of the Chief Administrative Judge’s Advisory Committee on Civil Practice specifically because the Committee and the legislature concluded that CPLR 4539 (b) had no application to documents originally created in electronic form. People v Kangas, 2016 NY Slip Op 06857, CtApp 10-20-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DWI, BREATH TEST, ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DWI, BREATH TEST, ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)DWI (BREATH TEST,  ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)/BREATH TEST (DWI, ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL LAW, DWI, BREATH TEST, ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)

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