You are here: / Criminal Law
,

LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive dissent, determined County Court did not abuse its discretion when it applied a statutory override for infliction of serious injury, adjudicating defendant a level three sex offender, despite the fact defendant was not charged with a sex offense. By statute, a defendant convicted of the unlawful imprisonment of a child is deemed a sex offender, even when no sex offense was committed. Here the child was assaulted (tortured) and seriously injured over the course of a five-day ordeal, but no sex offense was involved. The points assessed under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) criteria rose only to a level one. Because of the extreme violence, County Court applied the statutory override:

… [T]he application of the override for “infliction of serious physical injury,” “automatically result[s] in a presumptive risk assessment of level [three]” (Guidelines at 3). Therefore, properly framed, defendant’s argument is that the SORA court abused its discretion in declining to engage in a downward departure from the presumptive risk level three. We disagree.

Defendant’s sole argument to the SORA court was that the absence of a sexual component to his crime, in and of itself, warranted a level one adjudication. That factor, the existence of which was not in dispute, was considered [when] the Board assessed him 0 points for risk factor 2 — Sexual Contact with Victim. Defendant made no other argument of a mitigating factor to the SORA court in support of a downward departure. In the exercise of its discretion, the SORA court declined to depart from the presumptive risk level three. People v Howard, 2016 NY Slip Op 03415, CtApp 5-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD)/SORA (LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD)

,

PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.

The Court of Appeals noted that its review of whether there was probable cause for arrest, a mixed question of fact and law, is limited to whether there is support for a probable-cause finding in the record. Here the police were conducting surveillance on a target drug dealer. The police observed defendant take a bag from the target’s car, which was deemed sufficient to provide probable cause to arrest:

After a Darden hearing … , Supreme Court found that the confidential information had given the police “cause to believe” that the surveillance target was engaged in “drug activity.” Insofar as a Darden hearing is held to ensure “that the confidential informant both exists and gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause” … , it may be inferred from the Darden hearing court’s ruling, which was adopted by the suppression court for the purpose of determining probable cause, that the confidential information was not stale by the time of defendant’s arrest.

Furthermore, the officer’s justified belief that the surveillance target was trafficking in narcotics, together with the manner in which the bag was removed from the car, support the lower courts’ conclusion that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal possession of a controlled substance. Record support for probable cause may be found on the basis of “indicia of a drug transaction” known to “an experienced officer . . . trained in the investigation and detection of narcotics,” which include “handl[ing] [an] unidentified object in a manner typical of a drug sale” … . People v Joseph, 2016 NY Slip Op 03416, CtApp 5-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS)/APPEALS (COURT OF APPEALS REVIEW, CRIMINAL LAW, PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD)

PEOPLE NEED NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNEW THE KNIFE DEFENDANT POSSESSED MET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the People do not need to prove a defendant charged with possession of a gravity knife was aware the knife opened and locked by flicking the wrist downward. Here defendant claimed he always opened the knife with two hands, used it only to cut sheetrock and tile and did not know it was a gravity knife:

We … conclude that Penal Law § 265.01 (1) does not require the People to prove that defendants knew that the knife in their possession met the statutory definition of a gravity knife. The plain language of that subdivision demonstrates that the Legislature intended to impose strict liability to the extent that defendants need only be aware of their physical possession of the knife (see Penal Law §§ 15.00 [2]; 15.10). While knowing possession of the knife is required (see Penal Law § 15.15 [2]), we conclude it is not necessary that defendants know that the knife meets the technical definition of a gravity knife under Penal Law § 265.00 (5). People v Parrilla, 2016 NY Slip Op 03417, CtApp 5-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAVITY KNIFE, PEOPLE NEED NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNEW THE KNIFE DEFENDANT POSSESSED MET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE)/GRAVITY KNIFE (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE NEED NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNEW THE KNIFE DEFENDANT POSSESSED MET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE)

DENIAL OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

The Court of Appeals determined that defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was properly denied without a hearing:

“When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” … . .”[O]ften, a limited interrogation by the court will suffice” … . Here, the court gave the parties an opportunity to argue in furtherance of the motion to withdraw the plea, and because both parties declined, the motion was appropriately decided on the written submissions. Furthermore, while defense counsel claimed that defendant had been pressured by his family to take the plea, this Court has “never recognized 'coercion' by family members as a reason for withdrawing a guilty plea”… , and the record here does not demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion on that ground. Additionally, given defendant's silence in any sworn statement regarding his alleged use of drugs and alcohol and the court's ability to observe defendant during the colloquy …, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to have denied the motion to withdraw the plea without holding a hearing. People v Manor, 2016 NY Slip Op 03414, CtApp 5-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)/WITHDRAW PLEA, MOTION TO (DENIAL OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)

,

HOLDING SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE VIOLATED DUE PROCESS.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's presence is required at a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing to determined defendant's risk level:

A sex offender has a due process right to be present at a SORA hearing … , and the court “violated the due process rights of defendant when it held the SORA hearing in his absence without verifying that he had received the letter notifying him of the date of the hearing and his right to be present” … . We are thus constrained to reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a new hearing and sexually violent offender determination in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). People v Encarnacion, 2016 NY Slip Op 03369, 4th Dept 4-29-16


,

CODEFENDANT, WHO TESTIFIED AGAINST DEFENDANT, AND DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE SAME FIRM; IN THIS SITUATION AN INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT IS AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS AND CONSENTS IS REQUIRED; MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant's codefendant, pursuant to a plea bargain, testified against the defendant. The attorney who represented the codefendant and defendant's counsel were members of the same law firm. This situation has the potential of depriving defendant of his right to effective counsel requiring an inquiry by the court to ensure defendant is aware of all the facts and consents:

“Absent inquiry by the court and consent by the defendant, an attorney may not represent a criminal defendant in a trial at which a star prosecution witness is a codefendant whose plea bargain—including the promise to testify against defendant—was negotiated by a partner in the same firm. In these circumstances defendant is denied his right to effective assistance of counsel” … . Thus, a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel where a member of defense counsel's law firm represents a witness who testifies against defendant at trial unless the court conducts a “Gomberg inquiry to ascertain that the facts had been disclosed to defendant and that he [or she] had made a reasoned decision whether to proceed to trial with his [or her] attorney” … . People v Jackson, 2016 NY Slip Op 03317, 4th Dept 4-29-16


FAILURE TO PLACE ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO WEAR A STUNBELT DURING TRIAL, AND FAILURE TO APPRISE DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE, REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined County Court erred by failing to place on the record the reasons for requiring defendant to wear a stun belt during the trial, and by failing to apprise defense counsel of the contents of a note from the jury prior to accepting a verdict (an error that does not require preservation by objection):

We agree with defendant that the court erred in failing to make any findings on the record establishing that defendant needed to wear a stun belt during the trial … . * * *

We further agree with defendant that a new trial is required based on the court's failure to comply with CPL 310.30 in regard to Court Exhibit 11, a note from the jury during its deliberations. “[T]he [c]ourt committed reversible error by violating the core requirements of CPL 310.30 in failing to advise counsel on the record of the contents of a substantive jury note before accepting a verdict' ” … . Furthermore, “[w]here, as here, the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note . . . [,] preservation is not required' ” … . Contrary to the People's contention, the presumption of regularity does not apply to errors of this kind … . People v Gomez, 2016 NY Slip Op 03358, 4th Dept 4-29-16


REVERSIBLE ERROR TO READ BACK TO THE JURY THE PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION BUT NOT THE DEFENSE SUMMATION.

The Fourth Department determined the trial judge's reading back (to the jury) of only the prosecutor's summation was reversible error:

County Court abused its discretion in reading back the prosecutor's summation without also reading back the defense summation.  * * *

Pursuant to CPL 310.30, “the jury can request a reading of not only evidentiary material, but also any material which is pertinent to its deliberation, including the summations, and the trial court must give such requested information or instruction as [it] deems proper' ” … . We agree with defendant that the court abused its discretion in reading back only the prosecutor's summation under the circumstances presented here. The evidence of defendant's guilt is not overwhelming, and the jurors were clearly divided at times during their deliberations, as demonstrated by their frequent requests for guidance from the court through numerous notes. People v Rivers, 2016 NY Slip Op 03327, 4th Dept 4-29-16


PRISONER CONVICTED OF A CRIME COMMITTED WHEN HE WAS SIXTEEN AND SUBJECT TO A LIFE SENTENCE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO A PAROLE HEARING WHICH TAKES HIS YOUTH AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE INTO ACCOUNT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, over a concurrence and a two-justice partial dissent, determined petitioner was entitled to a de novo parole hearing in which his age at the time of the offense (16) is taken into account. Claimant was convicted of strangling his 14-year-old girlfriend and was sentenced to 22 years to life. Since serving 22 years in 2000, claimant, now 54, has been denied parole nine times. The Third Department ruled that the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment required that the parole board consider petitioner's youth at the time of the offense, noting that claimant has a right not to be punished with a life sentence if the crime reflects transient immaturity:

The [Parole] Board, as the entity charged with determining whether petitioner will serve a life sentence, was required to consider the significance of petitioner's youth and its attendant circumstances at the time of the commission of the crime before making a parole determination. That consideration is the minimal procedural requirement necessary to ensure the substantive Eighth Amendment protections set forth in Graham v Florida (560 US 48 [2010]), Miller v Alabama (___ US ___, 132 S Ct 2455 [2012]) and Montgomery v Louisiana (___ US ___, 136 S Ct 718 [2016]). * * *

… [T]he Supreme Court of the United States held in Miller v Alabama (supra) that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment (id. at 2460). As that Court has since clarified, a substantive rule announced in Miller is “that life without parole is an excessive sentence for children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity” (Montgomery v Louisiana, 136 S Ct at 735). The Court considered this guarantee in the context of the sentencing stage, and it found that the “procedural requirement necessary to implement [this] substantive guarantee” is “a hearing where youth and its attendant characteristics are considered” for the purpose of “separat[ing] those juveniles who may be sentenced to life without parole from those who may not” … . * * *

A parole board is no more entitled to subject an offender to the penalty of life in prison in contravention of this rule than is a legislature or a sentencing court. Matter of Hawkins v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2016 NY Slip Op 03236, 3rd Dept 4-28-16


,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING THE TRIAL, REQUESTED TO BE RELIEVED FROM REPRESENTING DEFENDANT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The First Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined defendant should have been present when defense counsel explained his concerns about defendant to the judge and asked to be relieved from representing the defendant. The request was denied:

In conducting a colloquy on defense counsel's request to be relieved, the court erred in failing to permit defendant to provide any input, or to even be present. At least by the time that the substance of counsel's ex parte application became clear, defendant should have been included in the proceeding.

…[T]his proceeding was an “ancillary proceeding[] [at which] he . . . may have [had] something valuable to contribute” … , and thus that his exclusion from it was error. While defendant may not have been able to justify counsel's removal, we cannot say that the “new matter” brought to light at the ex parte proceeding — where counsel revealed the content of a privileged communication with the court, and expressed the belief that defendant's criticisms of his performance were insincere attempts to sow error in the record — implicated “no potential for meaningful input from [] defendant” … on the subject of whether continued representation by counsel was appropriate.

The proceeding also implicated the court's obligation to make a “minimal inquiry” regarding whether the new facts justified substitution of counsel… . People v Moya, 2016 NY Slip Op 03241, 1st Dept 4-28-16


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