You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE PROBATION CONDITION THAT DEFENDANT “SUPPORT DEPENDENTS AND MEET OTHER FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES” WAS NOT TAILORED TO THE OFFENSE (CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON) AND WAS THEREFORE DELETED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, deleting a condition of probation, determined that the condition that defendant “support dependents and meet other family responsibilities” was not tailored to the offense (criminal possession of a weapon):

“Pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10(1), conditions of probation ‘shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that [a] defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist [the defendant] to do so'” … . “The statute ‘quite clearly restricts probation conditions to those reasonably related to a defendant’s rehabilitation'” … .

Here, under the circumstances of this case, Condition No. 14, requiring that the defendant “[s]upport dependents and meet other family responsibilities,” was improperly imposed because it was not individually tailored in relation to the offense and therefore, was not reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation or necessary to insure that he will lead a law-abiding life … . People v Sobers, 2025 NY Slip Op 00992, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Probation conditions must be tailored to the offense to which defendant pled guilty. Here the condition that defendant support dependents and meet family responsibilities was not relevant to the offense (criminal possession of a weapon).​

 

THE FEDERAL OFFENSE WHICH SERVED AS A PREDICATE FOR DEFENDANT’S SECOND-FELONY-OFFENDER DESIGNATION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE FIREARM INVOLVED BE OPERABLE; THE RELEVANT NEW YORK FELONY OFFENSE INCLUDES OPERABILITY AS AN ELEMENT; THEREFORE THE FEDERAL OFFENSE IS NOT A VALID PREDICATE OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s second-felony-offender designation, determined the federal crime constituting the predicate offense was not a felony in New York  One of the elements of the relevant New York felony was that the firearm involved in the offense be operable. That element was missing from the federal offense:

“Penal Law § 70.06 requires the imposition of enhanced sentences for those found to be predicate felons” … . Among other criteria, for the purpose of determining whether a prior conviction is a predicate felony conviction, the conviction must have been in New York of a felony, “or in any other jurisdiction of an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year or a sentence of death was authorized and is authorized in this state irrespective of whether such sentence was imposed” (Penal Law § 70.06[1][b][i]). “Since New York authorizes sentences exceeding one year only for felonies, the second prong of this statutory test requires an inquiry to determine whether the foreign conviction has an equivalent among New York’s felony-level crimes” … . “As a general rule, this inquiry is limited to a comparison of the crimes’ elements as they are respectively defined in the foreign and New York penal statutes” … . Here, the defendant’s predicate crime does not require as one of its elements that the firearm be operable … and, thus, does not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing … . People v Davis, 2025 NY Slip Op 00977, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Here defendant’s prior federal offense did not require that the firearm involve be operable. The corresponding New York felony requires operability. Therefore the federal offense could not serve as a predicate offense for a second-felony-offender designation.

 

THE TEN-YEAR LOOKBACK FOR A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER DESIGNATION FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES IS TOLLED BY PRESENTENCE, AS WELL AS POST-SENTENCE, INCARCERATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, determined the ten-year lookback for a persistent violent felony offender designation is tolled by any presentence period of incarceration:

A person convicted of a violent felony offense is a “persistent violent felony offender” for sentencing purposes if that person has “two or more predicate violent felony convictions” (Penal Law § 70.08 [1] [a], [b]). Those potentially qualifying felony convictions must satisfy the timing requirement set forth in Penal Law § 70.04, namely that the sentence on the prior crime must have been imposed not more than ten years before the commission of the current felony (Penal Law § 70.04 [1] [b] [iv]). This ten-year lookback period is extended by any period of incarceration between commission of the prior felony and commission of the current felony (Penal Law § 70.04 [1] [b] [v]). Defendant challenges any extension of the ten-year lookback period using time he spent in presentence incarceration on his earliest qualifying felony conviction. We now hold that pursuant to Penal Law § 70.04, defendant’s presentence incarceration time did extend the ten-year period and therefore defendant was properly sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender. People v Hernandez, 2025 NY Slip Op 00904, CtApp 2-18-25

Practice Point: The ten-year lookback for a persistent violent felony offender designation is tolled by both presentence and post-sentence incarceration.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO STEAL TWO CANS OF RED BULL WHEN HE ENTERED THE CVS; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE EVIDENCE OF FELONY BURGLARY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, NOTING THAT THE PROSECUTOR COULD HAVE CHARGED PETTY LARCENY OR TRESPASS, THEREBY SAVING THE STATE THE MILLION DOLLARS IT COST TO INCARCERATE THE HOMELESS, MENTALLY ILL AND DRUG-ADDICTED DEFENDANT FOR AN ATTEMPT TO STEAL ITEMS WORTH $6 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s burglary conviction rejecting the “legally insufficient evidence” argument. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Wilson (Judge Halligan concurring), argued the evidence was legally insufficient. Judge Wilson wrote “no evidence in the case could have led a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams intended to steal the two Red Bulls” when he entered the CVS:

From the dissent:

Two cans of Red Bull cost about $6. Seven years of incarceration costs anywhere between $800,000 and $4 million, depending on the location within New York State … . For attempting to take two cans of Red Bull from a CVS, Raymond Williams was convicted of third-degree burglary, a felony, and sentenced to three and a half to seven years in prison. Mr. Williams was a perpetual petty shoplifter with substance abuse and mental health problems, so perhaps this result makes sense to someone. It does not to me.

Mr. Williams’s story is not uncommon. For much of his life, he has struggled with homelessness and drug addiction. Both factors disproportionately increase the risk of being caught up in the criminal justice system and sentenced to spend time in prison. Mr. Williams had previously been found guilty of many minor shoplifting offenses, including from other CVS stores. His problems were addressed by sentences of incarceration and probation, not treatment. * * *

Putting both psychiatric and fiscal wisdom aside, although it was within the discretion of prosecutors to charge Mr. Williams with felony burglary instead of, for example, petty larceny or trespass, the trial evidence was legally insufficient to convict him of burglary. No evidence in the case could have led a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams intended to steal the two Red Bulls. I would therefore reverse his conviction. People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 00901, CtApp 2-18-25

Practice Point: Consult the dissent for a strong argument for prosecutorial discretion in shoplifting cases, especially where the defendant is homeless, mentally ill and addicted to drugs. Here the defendant was sentenced to three and a half to seven years in prison for attempting to steal two cans of Red Bull from a CVS (burglary third).

 

,

HERE AN ALLEGED PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY THE ROBBERY VICTIM, OFFERED AT TRIAL SOLELY FOR IMPEACHMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VICTIM WAS THE SOLE WITNESS TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE FACTS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s conviction. over a three-judge concurring opinion, determined that an alleged prior inconsistent statement made by the robbery victim, the only fact witness, offered at trial solely for impeachment, did not render the evidence legally insufficient. Neither the memorandum decision nor the concurring opinion discusses the underlying facts:

The victim, who was the sole person to testify about the facts concerning defendant’s conviction of robbery in the third degree, gave a statement to police, through an interpreter, several hours after the alleged robbery that was inconsistent on a material element of the offense with his trial testimony. That statement was introduced through the officer’s testimony at trial, solely for the purpose of impeachment. When an alleged contradictory prior statement is admitted solely for the purpose of impeachment, the rule of People v Ledwon (153 NY 10 [1897]) and People v Jackson (65 NY2d 265 [1985]) is not implicated. The evidence was legally sufficient to support the inference that defendant intended to steal property forcibly … . People v Howard, 2025 NY Slip Op 00804, CtApp 2-13-25

Practice Point: Here a prior inconsistent statement by the robbery victim, the only fact witness at trial, did not render the evidence legally insufficient.

 

, ,

IF THE TRIAL EVIDENCE VARIES FROM THE THEORY OF THE INDICTMENT, THE RELATED CONVICTIONS WILL BE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s convictions on some counts, determined the trial evidence varied from the theory of the indictment. The facts were not explained:

This Court agrees with the parties that defendant’s conviction under count 2 of the indictment charging grand larceny in the fourth degree, as well as criminal acts 1 and 6 alleged in count 1 of the indictment charging enterprise corruption, must be reversed because the trial evidence, which included evidence suggesting that defendant threatened physical damage to construction sites through vandalism, varied from the theory of the indictment (see People v Grega, 72 NY2d 489, 496-498 [1988]). People v Correll, 2025 NY Slip Op 00796, First Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: If the trial evidence does not comport with the theory of the indictment, the related counts will be vacated.​

 

,

COUNTY COURT PROPERLY GRANTED THE PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF DEFENDANT’S CASE TO FAMILY COURT UNDER THE “RAISE THE AGE ACT;” THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a comprehensive dissent, determined County Court properly granted the People’s motion to prevent removal of defendant’s case to Family Court pursuant to the Raise the Age Law:

In 2017, the New York State Legislature enacted the Raise the Age Law, which defines a person who was charged with a felony committed on or after October 1, 2018 when the person was 16 years old, or committed on or after October 1, 2019 when the person was 17 years old, as an ” ‘[a]dolescent offender’ ” … . The Raise the Age Law created in each county a youth part of the superior court to make appropriate determinations with respect to the cases of, inter alia, adolescent offenders … . Where, as here, an adolescent offender is charged with a violent felony as defined in Penal Law § 70.02, within six calendar days of the adolescent offender’s arraignment, the youth part of superior court is required to review the accusatory instrument and determine whether the prosecutor has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the adolescent offender caused “significant physical injury” to someone other than a participant in the crime, displayed a “firearm, shotgun, rifle or deadly weapon as defined in the penal law” in furtherance of the crime, or unlawfully engaged in sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct or sexual contact as defined in section 130.00 of the Penal Law … . If none of those factors exist, the matter must be transferred to Family Court unless the prosecutor moves to prevent the transfer of the action to Family Court and establishes that extraordinary circumstances exist … . … [I]n making an extraordinary circumstances determination, courts should “look at all the circumstances of the case, as well as . . . all of the circumstances of the young person,” … . …

… [T]he court did not abuse its discretion in granting the prosecutor’s motion to prevent removal inasmuch as the prosecutor established that there are extraordinary circumstances. … [D]efendant’s prior adjudications as a juvenile delinquent or any evidence obtained as a result of those proceedings cannot be used in determining whether to grant the People’s motion (Family Ct Act § 381.2 [2] …).. Nevertheless, although it is impermissible to raise any issue related to the adjudication or evidence obtained therefrom, it is still permissible to raise ” ‘the illegal or immoral acts underlying such adjudications’ ” … .

Here … defendant was charged with participating in a violent crime, i.e., a home invasion robbery involving weapons and resulting in injuries to the victim. Moreover, despite the various services and programs provided to defendant over the last five years while defendant had been involved in the criminal justice system, defendant has made no appreciable positive response and continues to engage in escalating criminal behavior. People v Guerrero, 2025 NY Slip Op 00766, Fourth Dept 2-7-25

Practice Point: Under the “Raise the Age Act” the People can move to prevent the transfer of felony cases to Family Court where the defendant was 16 or 17 at the time of the alleged offense.

 

, , ,

DESIGNATING DEFENDANT A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER BASED SOLELY UPON THE FACT HE WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN PENNSYLVANIA VIOLATED DUE PROCESS; HOWEVER THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA FELONIES WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE IN NEW YORK, A QUESTION NOT RAISED BEFORE COUNTY COURT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s SORA designation as a sexually violent offender based upon Pennsylvania convictions as a violation of due process, but remitted the matter to Count Court for consideration of the issue under another provision of the Correction Law:

… [W]e conclude, based on the reasoning set forth by the plurality in People v Malloy (228 AD3d 1284, 1287-1291 [4th Dept 2024]), that there is no rational basis for designating defendant a sexually violent offender solely on the ground of his conviction of the Pennsylvania felony sex offenses requiring him to register as a sex offender in that jurisdiction … . Defendant has therefore met his burden of showing that the imposition of the sexually violent offender designation under the second disjunctive clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b), as applied to him, violates his constitutional right to substantive due process. Consequently, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and vacate that designation.

However, we note that the issue whether the essential elements of any of the Pennsylvania felonies were the statutory equivalent of a sexually violent offense in New York under the essential elements test set out in the first disjunctive clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b) was never raised before County Court. We decline to consider that alternative basis for affirmance, sua sponte, for the first time on appeal … . We therefore remit to County Court to consider whether any of the Pennsylvania felonies includes all of the essential elements of a sexually violent offense set forth in Correction Law § 168-a (3) (a) … . People v Boldorff, 2025 NY Slip Op 00765, Fourth Dept 2-7-25

Practice Point: A sexually-violent-offender designation based solely upon the fact defendant was required to register as a sex offender in Pennsylvania was deemed unconstitutional here. But the matter was remitted for a determination whether any of the Pennsylvania felonies would have constituted a sexually violent offense in New York.​

 

,

THE BULLET CASINGS IN EVIDENCE COULD HAVE COME FROM A PISTOL OR A RIFLE; DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A PISTOL AND THE JURY WAS SO INSTRUCTED; BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE JURY TO CONCLUDE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A PISTOL, AS OPPOSED TO A RIFLE, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction as against the weight of the evidence, determined the People did not prove defendant possessed a “pistol” as opposed to a “rifle” at the time of the shooting. There was video evidence showing a muzzle flash from the area in the car where defendant was sitting, but the weapon could not be seen. Because the indictment and the jury instructions charged defendant with possession of a “pistol,” the conviction could not stand:

… [T]he indictment and the jury charge specifically narrowed the theory of the case to require the People to establish that defendant possessed a loaded pistol at the time in question. Here, the evidence permitted, at best, mere speculation that the firearm defendant allegedly possessed was a pistol, and not a rifle. Video footage of the shooting shows multiple muzzle flashes indicative of gunfire from the vehicle—it does not directly depict the firearm that is firing the shots. Moreover, the angle of the video does not permit an observer to make any reasonable inferences about what type of firearm is being fired at the relevant time. Nothing in the video establishes that the firearm being fired was a pistol rather than another type of firearm. People v Brumfield, 2025 NY Slip Op 00764, Fourth Dept 2-7-25

Practice Point: The People are held to the theory presented in the indictment and charged to the jury. Since the indictment charged defendant with illegal possession of a pistol and the jury was so charged, the People’s failure to prove the type of firearm defendant possessed required reversal of the conviction.

 

, ,

THE WARRANT REQUIRED THE SEIZED CELL PHONE BE “RETURNED TO THE COURT;” INSTEAD THE CELL PHONE WAS TURNED OVER TO A CYBERSECURITY CENTER WHICH CONDUCTED A FORENSIC EXAMINATION AND MEMORY EXTRACTION; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE INFORMATION GLEANED FROM THE CELL PHONE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate her manslaughter conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel should have been granted. The search of defendant’s cell phone far exceeded the scope of the warrant. The warrant required that the seized cell phone be “returned to the court.” Instead the phone was turned over to a cybersecurity and forensics center where a forensic examination and memory extraction was conducted. A considerable amount of trial evidence was gleaned from the cell phone. Defense counsel did not move to suppress the cell-phone evidence:

We agree with defendant that she was denied effective assistance of counsel inasmuch as defense counsel failed to properly move to suppress the evidence obtained from her cell phone. “[I]ndiscriminate searches pursuant to general warrants ‘were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment’ ” … . A person’s cell phone now contains at least as much personal and private information as their home and, thus, indiscriminate searches of cell phones cannot be permitted … . As defendant correctly contends, the forensic examination and memory extraction of her cell phone’s contents exceeded the scope of the warrant, which only authorized OCSO to seize the cell phone and return it to the court … . Furthermore, the warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement inasmuch as it, inter alia, did not “specify the items to be seized by their relation to designated crimes” … . Thus, we conclude that defendant “established that a motion to suppress would likely be successful, and that defense counsel had no strategic or other legitimate explanation for not moving to suppress the evidence” … . People v Conley, 2025 NY Slip Op 00597, Fourth Dept 1-31-25

Practice Point: The Fourth Department noted that the search of a cell phone can reveal as much information as the search of a home. To be valid, a cell -phone search must be confined to the terms of the warrant, and the warrant must specify the items to be seized by their relation to the crimes.

 

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