You are here: / Criminal Law
,

DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE; EVIDENCE OF CHILD’S MULTIPLE DISCLOSURES OF SEX ABUSE WAS NOT BOLSTERING; DEFENSE COUNSEL ARTICULATED LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR NOT CALLING A MEDICAL EXPERT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, determined defense counsel was not ineffective in a child sex abuse case.  The central issues concerned the evidence of the child’s disclosures of the alleged abuse to several people (including the People’s expert), the prosecutor’s emphasis on the multiple disclosures without objection, and defense counsel’s failure to call a medical expert. The Court of Appeals held defense counsel articulated arguably legitimate reasons for not calling an expert, and the evidence of multiple disclosures did not constitute bolstering, but rather was properly admitted as background information, fleshing out the investigation, and the People’s expert’s diagnosis:

In Ludwig [24 NY3d 221], we acknowledged that “New York courts have routinely recognized that ‘nonspecific testimony about [a] child-victim’s reports of sexual abuse [does] not constitute improper bolstering [when] offered for the relevant, nonhearsay purpose of explaining the investigative process'” and assisting in the completion of the narrative of events which led to the defendant’s arrest … . Here, the testimony of the child’s mother, sister, principal and the two officers fulfilled these legitimate nonhearsay purposes, and defense counsel’s objections to the testimony of the witnesses ensured that the witnesses did not specifically repeat what the child told them.

The majority of [the People’s medical expert’s] testimony as to the child’s specific allegations of sexual abuse was admissible under People v Spicola (16 NY3d 441 [2011]). In Spicola, we held that testimony of a nurse-practitioner concerning the child’s history of sexual abuse was permissible testimony because the child’s statements to the nurse-practitioner “were germane to diagnosis and treatment” and therefore “were properly admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule” (16 NY3d at 451). Applying Spicola here, the trial court properly admitted [the expert’s] testimony. The testimony explained why the child was being examined by [the expert] and why the normal results of the physical examination did not indicate that the child had not been subjected to sexual abuse. This background information completed the narrative and was properly permitted under the exception to the hearsay rule. Moreover, defense counsel lodged an objection to [the expert’s] testimony concerning the child’s history; however, that objection was overruled. Defense counsel can hardly be deemed ineffective on this score.

Trial counsel’s failure to request that a limiting instruction be given to the jury that the child’s testimony concerning the disclosures she made to other individuals should not be accepted for the truth of her allegations, does not render her ineffective in light of the totality of her representation of defendant … . Moreover, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s summation comments referencing the testimony of the witnesses to whom the victim had disclosed. Despite the dissent’s argument to the contrary, the failure to object to the prosecutor’s statement on summation does not negate the overall meaningful representation provided to defendant by his counsel. Defense counsel zealously advocated for defendant, making multiple successful objections which limited the testimony of several prosecution witnesses. Additionally, defense counsel may have made a strategic choice not to object during summation given that the witnesses were not able to testify to the specifics of the child’s allegations … . She may have felt that such an objection would not be worthwhile given the limited testimony elicited from the witnesses. Such a strategic decision does not support a finding of ineffectiveness … . People v Gross, 2016 NY Slip Op 01204, CtApp 2-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE RE MULTIPLE DISCLOSURES OF SEX ABUSE AND FAILURE TO CALL MEDICAL EXPERT)/ATTORNEYS (COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE RE MULTIPLE DISCLOSURES OF SEX ABUSE AND FAILURE TO CALL MEDICAL EXPERT)/EVIDENCE (EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE DISCLOSURES OF CHILD SEX ABUSE NOT BOLSTERING, ADMISSIBLE AS BACKGROUND INFORMATION)/EXPERT EVIDENCE (COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE RE MULTIPLE DISCLOSURES OF SEX ABUSE AND FAILURE TO CALL MEDICAL EXPERT)/BOLSTERING (EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE DISCLOSURES OF CHILD SEX ABUSE NOT BOLSTERING, ADMISSIBLE AS BACKGROUND)/BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE DISCLOSURES OF CHILD SEX ABUSE NOT BOLSTERING, ADMISSIBLE AS BACKGROUND INFORMATION)

,

APPELLATE DIVISION PROPERLY DECIDED APPEAL ON GROUNDS WHICH WERE NOT EXPLICITLY STATED BY THE TRIAL COURT BUT WHICH WERE IMPLICIT IN THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the Appellate Division did not exceed its statutory powers when it decided an evidentiary issue on grounds which were implicit in the trial court’s ruling, but not explicitly stated by the trial court. The trial judge had ruled rebuttal testimony was admissible to show defendant’s witness had lied when she testified she was currently “just friends” with the defendant. The Appellate Division found the testimony was admissible to show the defendant’s witness’s bias or motive to fabricate. The Court of Appeals held that the “bias or motive to fabricate” reasoning simply recognized the underlying premise of the trial court’s ruling, and did not violate the rule that the Appellate Division cannot decide an appeal on a ground not ruled upon by the lower court. The Court of Appeals also ruled that evidence of uncharged acts of violence against or witnessed by the child sex-abuse victim were admissible to explain the victim’s delay in reporting the abuse, and the expert evidence of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome was properly presented despite jurors stating in voir dire that a child’s delay in reporting would be understandable. With respect to the Appellate Division’s review powers, the Court of Appeals wrote:

Where a trial court does not identify the predicate for its ruling, the Appellate Division acts appropriately in considering the import of the trial judge’s stated reasoning. Moreover, nothing in the language of CPL 470.15 (1) … prohibits an appellate court from considering the record and the proffer colloquy with counsel to understand the context of the trial court’s ultimate determination, as it did in defendant’s case. Unlike the case where the Appellate Division renders a decision on grounds explicitly different from those of the trial court, or on grounds that were clearly resolved in a defendant’s favor—the type of appellate overreaching prohibited by CPL 470.15 (1) … , the Appellate Division here affirmed the evidentiary ruling on the ground relied on by the trial court, namely to establish the defense witness lied that she and defendant were merely friends, as well as the unspoken, record-supported inferences that can be drawn from that testimony. We therefore conclude that the Appellate Division acted within its statutory appellate review power.

Any other interpretation of CPL 470.15 (1) would require a trial judge to state every analytic step underlying a determination to admit or deny evidence, no matter how obvious the reasoning from the record. This approach demands a heretofore unexpected level of descriptive technical exactitude. It would require the judiciary to participate in a laborious exercise, without obvious commensurate benefit to the parties or our system of justice. We do not mean that a trial court’s evidentiary rulings may go unexplained, that the Appellate Division may hypothesize the basis for a judge’s determination where a record is wholly devoid of reason, or that an appellate court may comb through the entirety of a record solely to cobble together some theory for the trial court’s conclusion. There must be sufficient articulation of a “reviewable predicate” … . Thus, where the trial court’s decision is fully articulated the Appellate Division’s review is limited to those grounds, but where the trial court gives a reason and there is record support for inferences to be drawn from that reason, the Appellate Division does not act beyond the parameters legislatively set forth in CPL 470.15 (1) when it considers those inferences. People v Nicholson, 2016 NY Slip Op 01206, CtApp 2-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS MAY BE DECIDED ON GROUNDS IMPLICIT IN THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL APPEALS MAY BE DECIDED ON GROUNDS IMPLICIT IN THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING)/CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED ACTS OF VIOLENCE ADMISSIBLE TO EXPLAIN CHILD SEX-ABUSE VICTIM’S DELAY IN REPORTING)/EVIDENCE (UNCHARGED ACTS OF VIOLENCE ADMISSIBLE TO EXPLAIN CHILD SEX-ABUSE VICTIM’S DELAY IN REPORTING)/CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE ACCOMMODATION SYNDROME (EXPERT EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE EVEN THOUGH JURORS STATED IN VOIR DIRE THEY UNDERSTOOD WHY A CHILD WOULD DELAY IN REPORTING ABUSE)

MECHANISMS FOR SEEKING DEFERRAL OF MANDATORY SURCHARGE EXPLAINED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined, where a sentence of incarceration exceeds 60 days,  a sentencing judge does not have the power to waive the mandatory surcharge. The only mechanism available to such a defendant who seeks to demonstrate the inability to pay the surcharge is a motion for resentencing:

… [T]he relevant statutes prohibit judicial waiver of a mandatory surcharge, require collection of any unpaid amounts from an inmate’s funds as of the moment of confinement and throughout the period of incarceration, and provide for deferral under limited circumstances, namely an inability to pay that is not solely due to incarceration. A person subject to a mandatory surcharge may seek to defer payment at any time after sentencing, by way of a motion to resentence under CPL 420.10 (5). In addition, persons sentenced to confinement of 60 days or less, may avoid filing such motion, and instead present information in support of a request to defer on the appearance date set forth on a summons issued pursuant to Penal Law § 60.35 (8). Under either procedural mechanism, if the court grants a deferral it must place its reasons on the record … , and issue a written order, which shall be treated as a civil judgment in accordance with CPLR 5016 … . This statutory scheme is structured to further the legislative goals of raising revenue and ensuring payment of the mandatory surcharge by persons convicted of crimes. People v Jones, 2016 NY Slip Op 01208, CtApp 2-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DEFERRAL OF MANDATORY SURCHARGE)/SENTENCING (DEFERRAL OF MANDATORY SURCHARGE)/MANDATORY SURCHARGE (DEFERRAL)

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)

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