You are here: / Criminal Law

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


DNA TEST RESULTS DEEMED TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY TRIGGERING DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE ANALYST(S) WITH FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF CRUCIAL STAGES OF THE ANALYSIS.

The Court of Appeals, in an extensive opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an equally extensive three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the results of DNA testing, which matched defendant's DNA to that found on a weapon, should not have been admitted based solely on the testimony of a laboratory analyst who did not witness crucial aspects of the testing. The evidence was deemed “testimonial” requiring the People to produce a witness with first-hand knowledge who can be cross-examined about essential aspects of the analysis:

Here, there was a criminal action pending against defendant, and the gun, found in the basement of a multifamily dwelling where defendant lived, was evidence seized by police for that prosecution. Swabs from the gun were then tested by an accredited public DNA crime laboratory with the primary (truly, the sole) purpose of proving a particular fact in a criminal proceeding — that defendant possessed the gun and committed the crime for which he was charged. The testing analysts purposefully recorded the DNA profile test results, thereby providing the very basis for the scientific conclusions rendered thereon. Under these circumstances, the laboratory reports as to the DNA profile generated from the evidence submitted to the laboratory by the police in a pending criminal case were testimonial. The DNA profiles were generated in aid of a police investigation of a particular defendant charged by an accusatory instrument and created for the purpose of substantively proving the guilt of a defendant in his pending criminal action. * * *

… [W]e conclude that it is the generated numerical identifiers and the calling of the alleles at the final stage of the DNA typing that effectively accuses defendant of his role in the crime charged. … [A] laboratory that uses a … multiple-analyst model, may adapt their operation so that a single analyst is qualified to testify as to the DNA profile testing. For example, an analyst who generated the DNA profile from one sample may also observe the final stage of testing or retesting involved in the generation of the other profile. Nor do we suggest that, when the testing analysts are unavailable, a fully qualified … expert … cannot testify after analyzing the necessary data, including an independent analysis of the computer imaging from the software used for calling the alleles and recording their separate and distinct analysis. Thus, the claim of a need for a horde of analysts is overstated and a single analyst, particularly the one who performed, witnessed or supervised the generation of the critical numerical DNA profile, would satisfy the dictates of Crawford [541 US 36] and Bullcoming [564 US 647]. People v John, 2016 NY Slip Op 03208. CtApp 4-28-16


,

DEFENDANT RAISED SUBSTANTIVE FACTUAL DISPUTES ABOUT THE EFFICACY AND LEGALITY OF METHODS USED BY THE POLICE TO IDENTIFY HIS IP ADDRESS AND THE CONTENTS OF HIS COMPUTER, SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS REQUIRED.

The Second Department, in this child pornography case, determined Supreme Court should not have denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his computer without a hearing. The defense motion papers raised substantive factual disputes concerning the efficacy and legality of methods and software used by the police to identify defendant's IP address and the contents of defendant's computer, issues which can only be resolved by a hearing:

In determining a motion to suppress evidence, the court “is required to grant a hearing if the defendant raise[s] a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue' of whether evidence was obtained in a constitutionally permissible manner” … . “[T]he sufficiency of [a] defendant's factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant's access to information” … .

In his omnibus motion, the defendant contended that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. The defendant's motion included detailed factual allegations regarding the functioning of peer-to-peer networks and, based on these assertions, challenged the detective's contention in the warrant application that he was able to identify child pornography files that actually existed on the defendant's computer. In his separate suppression motion, the defendant raised a factual dispute, inter alia, as to whether the use of certain software or other activity by the investigating detective prior to securing the warrant constituted a search of his computer. People v Worrell, 2016 NY Slip Op 03206, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Second Department determined the trial judge's denial of the defense's for cause juror challenge was reversible error:

CPL 270.20(1)(b) provides that a prospective juror may be challenged for cause if the juror “has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him [or her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial.” Where an issue is raised concerning the ability of a prospective juror to be fair and impartial, the prospective juror must state unequivocally that his or her prior state of mind will not influence his or her verdict, and that he or she will render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence … . A prospective juror's responses, construed as a whole, must demonstrate an absolute belief that his or her prior opinion will not influence his or her verdict … .

Here, during voir dire, one prospective juror indicated in response to questioning by defense counsel that, because she had a 14-year-old daughter and a 17-year-old daughter, this “could” weigh on her ability to be fair and impartial because “[t]hey are the same age range” as the complainant. When defense counsel followed up by asking, “[w]ould you fear whether or not you could be fair and impartial?,” the prospective juror responded by stating, “I think it would be hard for me to watch a witness, being that I have daughters the same age.”

Once the prospective juror expressed doubt regarding her ability to be impartial, it was incumbent upon the court to ascertain that she would render an impartial verdict based on the evidence … . This was not done. People v Valdez, 2016 NY Slip Op 03203, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


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