You are here: / Criminal Law

A TRIAL JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, ONLY THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAS THAT POWER.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a trial judge who renders a guilty verdict on an indictment count in a bench trial cannot thereafter conduct a weight of the evidence analysis and dismiss the count. Here, the judge reserved decision on defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal, found the defendant guilty, and then dismissed the count pursuant to the motion for a trial order of dismissal based up a weight of the evidence analysis:

 

“A Trial Judge who has rendered a guilty verdict after a nonjury trial has neither inherent power nor statutory authority to reconsider his [or her] factual determination. Although he [or she] may correct clerical or ministerial errors, he [or she] is without authority to reassess the facts and change a guilty verdict to not guilty” … . “After formal rendition of a verdict at a bench trial, a trial court lacks authority to reweigh the factual evidence and reconsider the verdict” … . “The term verdict’ is defined as the announcement . . . by the court in the case of a non-jury trial, of its decision upon the defendant’s guilt or innocence of the charges . . . considered by it'” … . Thus, “[t]rial judges are prohibited from setting aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence. This power is reserved to the Appellate Division, which essentially sits as a thirteenth juror” … . * * *

Here, the defendant moved pursuant to CPL 290.10, at the close of evidence, for a trial order of dismissal, and the court reserved decision, as permitted by CPL 290.10 (1)(b), until after the verdict was rendered. We conclude that, where a defendant has moved for a trial order of dismissal pursuant to CPL 290.10 and the court has held all or part of that motion in abeyance, a court conducting a nonjury trial likewise may not render a verdict and then reconsider its factual determination; instead, the court must consider the legal sufficiency of the evidence in support of its original verdict … . Accordingly, in this matter, the Supreme Court’s order vacating its verdict of guilty as to count two of the indictment and dismissing that count must be reversed.  People v Dobson, 2016 NY Slip Op 01198, 2nd Dept 2-17-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TRIAL JUDGE, IN A BENCH TRIAL, DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AFTER ISSUING A GUILTY VERDICT)/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (TRIAL JUDGE, IN A BENCH TRIAL, DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AFTER ISSUING A GUILTY VERDICT)/TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL (TRIAL JUDGE, IN A BENCH TRIAL, DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AFTER ISSUING A GUILTY VERDICT)/BENCH TRIAL (TRIAL JUDGE, IN A BENCH TRIAL, DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AFTER ISSUING A GUILTY VERDICT)

AIR FRESHENERS HANGING FROM REAR-VIEW MIRROR PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE JUSTIFYING VEHICLE STOP.

The Fourth Department, in the context of upholding the revocation of petitioner’s license for refusing to submit to a chemical blood alcohol test, determined the arresting officer had probable cause to believe petitioner had committed a traffic offense, and therefore the vehicle-stop was valid. The basis of the stop was the officer’s observation of air fresheners hanging three or four inches below the rear-view mirror:

 

… [P]olice stops of automobiles in this State are legal only pursuant to routine, nonpretextual traffic checks to enforce traffic regulations or when there exists at least a reasonable suspicion that the driver or occupants of the vehicle have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime’ . . . [,] or where the police have probable cause to believe that the driver . . . has committed a traffic violation’ ” … . …[P]robable cause . . . does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed’ ” … . Here, the record establishes that the officer had probable cause to believe that petitioner was violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (30) inasmuch as the officer testified that he observed objects measuring approximately four inches wide—later identified as air fresheners—hanging three or four inches below the rearview mirror, and that those objects may have obstructed petitioner’s view through the windshield … . Matter of Deveines v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 01074, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (AIR FRESHENERS PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR VEHICLE STOP)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (AIR FRESHENERS PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR VEHICLE STOP)/VEHICLE STOP (AIR FRESHENERS PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR STOP)/AIR FRESHENERS (PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR VEHICLE STOP)

,

UNNECESSARILY ALLOWING THE JURY TO KNOW DEFENDANT WAS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ANY REASONABLE DEFENSE STRATEGY, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Defendant was accused of rape. Although it was not necessary to do so, defense counsel allowed the jury to learn that defendant was a registered sex offender and mentioned the sex-offender status in voir dire, in his opening, during cross-examination and in his closing.  The Fourth Department determined there was no reasonable defense strategy which could justify repeated reference to defendant’s sex-offender status:

 

… [W]e conclude that defense counsel’s strategy, i.e., to allow the jury to know that defendant was a registered sex offender and then argue that the police focused their investigation on defendant because he was a registered sex offender, was based on an obviously false premise. The police focused their investigation on defendant because his DNA profile matched that of the rapist, not because he was a registered sex offender. Moreover, defendant’s DNA profile was in CODIS because he was a convicted felon, not because he had committed a sexual offense. This is not to say that defense counsel pursued an unreasonable defense theory at trial. The theory was that defendant had consensual intercourse with the victim on the same day that she was raped by someone else. In pursuing that theory, however, it was unnecessary for defense counsel to inform the jury that defendant was a registered sex offender. In fact, any chance that the jurors would have believed defendant’s testimony about the intercourse being consensual was likely extinguished once they learned that he had previously committed a sex offense. In short, defendant derived no discernible benefit from the jury knowing that he was a registered sex offender, and was highly prejudiced thereby. People v Stefanovich, 2016 NY Slip Op 01070, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ALLOWING JURY TO KNOW DEFENDANT WAS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (ALLOWING JURY TO KNOW DEFENDANT WAS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (ALLOWING JURY TO KNOW DEFENDANT WAS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL ENCOMPASSES APPELLATE DIVISION’S INTEREST-OF-JUSTICE JURISDICTION, INCLUDING THE POWER TO REVIEW THE HARSHNESS OF AN AGREED SENTENCE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was valid, and included in the waiver was the Appellate Division’s interest-of-justice power to review the harshness of a negotiated sentence:

 

A defendant who has validly waived his right to appeal may not invoke this Court’s interest-of-justice jurisdiction to reduce a bargained-for sentence (Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256). “By pleading guilty and waiving the right to appeal, a defendant has forgone review of the terms of the plea, including harshness or excessiveness of the sentence” (id. at 256).

To be sure, as the Court of Appeals clarified in Lopez, the Appellate Division may be divested of its unique interest-of-justice jurisdiction only by constitutional amendment (6 NY3d at 255, citing People v Pollenz, 67 NY2d 264, 267-268 [1986]). However, as Lopez went on to hold, “a defendant is free to relinquish the right to invoke that authority and indeed does so by validly waiving the right to appeal” (id. at 256). People v Jenkins, 2016 NY Slip Op 01056, 1st Dept 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL ENCOMPASSES APPELLATE DIVISION’S INTEREST-OF-JUSTICE JURISDICTION, INCLUDING THE POWER TO REVIEW THE HARSHNESS OF AN AGREED SENTENCE)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL, WAIVER OF APPEAL ENCOMPASSES APPELLATE DIVISION’S INTEREST-OF-JUSTICE JURISDICTION, INCLUDING THE POWER TO REVIEW THE HARSHNESS OF AN AGREED SENTENCE)/INTEREST-OF-JUSTICE JURISDICTION (WAIVER OF APPEAL ENCOMPASSES APPELLATE DIVISION’S INTEREST-OF-JUSTICE JURISDICTION, INCLUDING THE POWER TO REVIEW THE HARSHNESS OF AN AGREED SENTENCE)

,

THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING THAT DEFENDANT, WHO WAS MENTALLY ILL, UNDERSTOOD THE APPEAL WAIVER; DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and defendant should have been accorded youthful offender status. The appeal waiver, the court noted, may have been valid for another defendant, but this defendant’s mental illness, which was evident in the appeal-waiver colloquy, indicated defendant did not understand the waiver.  Defendant was between the ages of 16 and 19 when he committed the burglary, he had no prior contact with the criminal justice system, and reports indicated the criminal behavior was an aberration caused by defendant’s mental illness and inappropriate treatment:

In view of defendant’s particular circumstances, i.e., his youth, inexperience, and history of mental illness, along with his statements during the plea proceeding, we conclude that defendant’s understanding of the waiver of the right to appeal is not evident on the face of the record, and that the waiver is invalid. In reaching that conclusion, we note that the same oral colloquy may have been adequate in other circumstances for a defendant of a different “age, experience and background” … . “[T]he same or similar oral colloquy . . . can produce an appeal waiver that is valid as to one defendant and invalid as to another defendant” … . Here, however, we “cannot be certain that . . . defendant comprehended the nature of the waiver of appellate rights” … . Review of defendant’s challenge to the denial of his application for youthful offender status is therefore not foreclosed by the waiver of the right to appeal.

We agree with defendant’s contention in both appeals that he should be afforded youthful offender status. It is undisputed that defendant, who was between the ages of 16 and 19 when the crimes were committed, is eligible for youthful offender treatment under CPL 720.10 (1) and (2) … . In determining whether to afford such treatment to a defendant, a court must consider “the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, mitigating circumstances, defendant’s prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, defendant’s reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, defendant’s attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life” … . People v Thomas R.O., 2016 NY Slip Op 01086, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO TEN DAYS NOTICE OF SORA JUDGE’S INTENT TO, SUA SPONTE, DEPART FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINER’S RISK ASSESSMENT.

The First Department determined defendant, in a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) proceeding, was entitled to notice the judge (not the prosecutor, as is the usual case) intended to seek a risk assessment different from that recommended by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. Because the defendant was not so notified, and new SORA hearing was ordered:

 

SORA protects a defendant’s due process rights by requiring written notice, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, to determine his risk level, if a determination differing from the Board’s recommendation is to be sought (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). The purpose of the notice is to afford the defendant a meaningful opportunity to respond at the hearing … . No less than when the People fail to give the required notice that they will seek a departure from the Board’s recommendation, a court’s sua sponte departure from the Board’s recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to respond … . Defendant is therefore entitled to a new hearing at which he is afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to the contention that he should be assessed points for forcible compulsion. People v Segura, 2016 NY Slip Op 01041, 1st Dept 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO TEN DAYS NOTICCE OF SORA JUDGE’S INTENT, SUA SPONTE, TO DEPART FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINER’S RISK ASSESSMENT)/SORA (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO TEN DAYS NOTICCE OF SORA JUDGE’S INTENT, SUA SPONTE, TO DEPART FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINER’S RISK ASSESSMENT)

JUDGE IMPOSED RESTITUTION AT SENTENCING WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, SENTENCE VACATED.

The Third Department vacated defendant’s sentence because restitution was imposed but was not part of the plea agreement. Defendant should have been given the opportunity to withdraw his plea:

 

Inasmuch as the record fails to establish that payment of restitution was part of defendant’s plea agreement, we must agree that County Court erred in imposing the enhanced sentence without giving defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea … . Accordingly, defendant’s sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court to either impose the agreed-upon sentence or give defendant the option of withdrawing his plea before imposing the enhanced sentence … . People v Brasmeister, 2016 NY Slip Op 01019, 3rd Dept 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (IMPOSING RESTITUTION AT SENTENCING WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE)/RESTITUTION (IMPOSING RESTITUTION AT SENTENCING WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE)/SENTENCING  (IMPOSING RESTITUTION AT SENTENCING WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE)

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO BE HEARD ON APPLICATION FOR RESENTENCING UNDER DRUG LAW REFORM ACT, DENIAL OF APPLICATION ON THE PAPERS REVERSED.

The Third Department determined denial of defendant’s application for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act without allowing defendant to be heard was error:

 

The Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 requires that, upon receipt of an application for resentencing, “the court shall offer an opportunity for a hearing and bring the applicant before it” (L 2004, ch 73, § 23; see CPL 440.46 [3]…). Inasmuch as the record does not reflect that defendant was afforded “an opportunity to be heard on the merits of [his] application,” the order appealed from must be reversed and the matter remitted to County Court so that a new determination can be made on defendant’s application after the proper procedure has been followed … . People v Davis, 2016 NY Slip Op 01006, 3rd Dept 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR RESENTENCING UNDER DRUG LAW REFORM ACT REVERSED, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO BE HEARD)/DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR RESENTENCING UNDER DRUG LAW REFORM ACT REVERSED, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO BE HEARD)/SENTENCING (DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR RESENTENCING UNDER DRUG LAW REFORM ACT REVERSED, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO BE HEARD)

OFFICER DID NOT HAVE GROUNDS TO PROCEED TO A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY, ASKING DEFENDANT IF HE HAD ANY WEAPONS OR DRUGS; SEIZURE WHEN DEFENDANT WALKED AWAY WAS ILLEGAL.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because it determined the suppression motion should have been granted. Although the arresting officer validly stopped the car in which defendant was a passenger because of tinted windows, validly asked about defendant’s identity and destination, and validly asked defendant to step out of the car, there was no valid basis for asking defendant if he had any weapons or drugs. The escalation of the officer’s questioning, based only on defendant’s nervousness and not on a grounded suspicion of criminal activity, was not justified. Therefore the officer’s seizure of defendant when defendant walked away and did not obey the officer’s command to stop was illegal. The cocaine, which was disposed of by the defendant during the illegal pursuit, should have been suppressed:

 

The officer testified at the suppression hearing that, when defendant responded to his level one inquiries, defendant appeared fidgety, grabbed at his pants pockets, looked around, and gave illogical and contradictory responses to the officer’s questions, which prompted the officer to ask defendant whether he had any weapons or drugs. With that question, the officer “proceed[ed] to the next level of confrontation, the common-law inquiry,’ which involves invasive questioning’ focusing on the possible criminality’ of the subject” … . That escalation was not supported by the requisite founded suspicion of criminality … . Defendant’s nervousness and the discrepancies in his explanation of where he was going did not give rise to a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot … .

Defendant responded to the officer’s level two inquiry by saying, “you’re harassing me,” and then walking away. The encounter escalated further to a level three seizure when the officer commanded him to stop, defendant continued to walk away, and the officer pursued defendant with a taser … . We reject the People’s contention that defendant’s conduct provided the officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion of criminality … . “Flight alone is insufficient to justify pursuit because an individual has a right to be let alone and refuse to respond to police inquiry” … . Finally, we conclude that defendant’s disposal of the bags containing cocaine during the officer’s pursuit was precipitated by the illegality of that pursuit … . Thus, the court erred in refusing to suppress the bags of cocaine. People v Hightower, 2016 NY Slip Op 01083, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER SENTENCE, COURT ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE PRIOR CONVICTION)/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER SENTENCE, COURT ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE PRIOR CONVICTION)/SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER (COURT ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE PRIOR CONVICTION)

SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER SENTENCE: COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY PROMISING TO OBTAIN TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE THE PRIOR CONVICTION AND THEN DECIDING NOT TO ORDER THE TRANSCRIPTS.

The Fourth Department determined defendant, who was sentenced as a second felony drug offender, should have been afforded a hearing to substantiate a constitutional challenge to a prior conviction. County Court indicated the transcripts of the prior proceedings would be provided, but ultimately sentenced defendant without providing them:

 

… [T]he court abused its discretion in sentencing him as a second felony drug offender without affording him the opportunity to substantiate his constitutional challenge to the predicate felony conviction with the transcripts of the proceeding underlying that conviction and without holding a hearing for that purpose. Inasmuch as defendant did not controvert the existence of the predicate felony conviction, it was incumbent upon defendant “to allege and prove facts to establish his claim that the conviction was unconstitutionally obtained” … . The record establishes that defendant, who was proceeding pro se, alleged certain constitutional violations in writing, and repeatedly and timely requested the necessary transcripts in order to prepare his constitutional challenge. The court promised to obtain the transcripts for defendant, acknowledged on the scheduled hearing date its oversight in failing to act on that promise and, upon being challenged by defendant at a rescheduled hearing, ultimately admitted that, after months of adjournments, it had decided not to order the transcripts as it had previously promised. Although there is no requirement that a trial court obtain such transcripts on a defendant’s behalf, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the court should not have proceeded to sentencing without at least attempting to obtain the transcripts sought by defendant and providing defendant a hearing on his constitutional challenge to the predicate felony conviction … . People v Farmer, 2016 NY Slip Op 01095, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER SENTENCE, COURT ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE PRIOR CONVICTION)/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER SENTENCE, COURT ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE PRIOR CONVICTION)/SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER (COURT ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE PRIOR CONVICTION)

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