You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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)

FOR PURPOSES OF THE TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK PERIOD FOR SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS, THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT THE DATE OF THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second violent felony offender because the operative prior conviction occurred outside the 10-year look-back period. Defendant was convicted of assault and sentenced to probation in 1994. He subsequently violated probation and was sentenced to incarceration in 1995. The lower courts used the 1995 sentence, which was within the 10-year look-back. But the Court of Appeals determined the 1994 sentence controlled. The revocation of probation in 1995 did not annul the original 1994 sentence:

 

The People would have us believe that sentence was imposed with respect to the prior conviction twice — once, in 1994, when defendant was subject to a period of probation through the original sentence, and again in 1995, when defendant was subject to a period of incarceration through the resentence. To be sure, the period of probation was imposed as part of a revocable sentence (Penal Law § 60.01 [2] [a] [i]), which is a “tentative [punishment in] that it may be altered or revoked” (Penal Law § 60.01 [2] [b]). For all other purposes, however, a revocable sentence “shall be deemed to be a final judgment of conviction” (id.), and where “the part of the sentence that provides for probation is revoked, the court must sentence [a defendant] to imprisonment or to [a] sentence of imprisonment and probation” (Penal Law § 60.01 [4] [emphasis added]). The legislature’s reference to the revocation of the part of the sentence imposing probation suggests that the substitution of a different punishment — such as incarceration — for the probation a defendant has violated does not constitute a new sentence, but rather a replacement of the original, conditional penalty reflected in the sentence.

Put differently, to revoke a penalty of probation does not equate to annulling a sentence. People v Thompson, 2016 NY Slip Op 00997, CtApp 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK, DATE OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS)/SENTENCING (SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK, DATE OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS)/SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS/(TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK, DATE OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS)

,

TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT RELIEVED DEFENSE COUNSEL ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS BECAUSE A POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial judge did not err by relieving defendant’s attorney, over defendant’s objection, on conflict of interest grounds.  The defense attorney, Fisher, worked for New York County Defender Services (NYCDS). Another NYCDS attorney had represented Stephens, who was involved in the same incident which led to the charges against the defendant. Fisher had no knowledge of the facts of Stephens’ case, but, before he learned of the conflict, Fisher had been looking for Stephens during his investigation as a possible witness. Fisher was instructed by his supervisors at NYCDS he could not question Stephens, call Stephens as a witness, or cross-examine Stephens if the People called him. The defendant told the trial judge he was willing to waive the conflict, because he wanted Fisher to act as his attorney, but he wanted to call Stephens as a witness. The trial judge determined the conflict warranted the assignment of new counsel:

 

… [T]he Appellate Division erred in holding that the trial court abused its discretion. Supreme Court appropriately balanced defendant’s countervailing rights, based on the information it had at the time, and reasonably concluded that Fisher could not effectively represent defendant due to NYCDS’s representation of Stephens and the duty of loyalty Fisher’s supervisors were asserting toward that former client. People v Watson, 2016 NY Slip Op 00998, CtApp 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)/ATTORNEYS (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)

DISCHARGE OF SWORN JUROR WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN APPROPRIATE INQUIRY AND WITHOUT SEEKING INPUT FROM COUNSEL WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Second Department determined the court’s discharging a sworn juror without allowing counsel to be heard was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal and a new trial. The juror became upset when she learned the defendant was a relative of a person she sees every day. With counsel’s permission, the trial judge interviewed the juror alone. The judge discharged her without conducting a proper inquiry, without first explaining to counsel what was discussed and without hearing from both counsel on what should be done:

 

As a matter of procedure, the court, at a minimum, should have informed all parties of the substance of the in camera interview and provided each side with an opportunity to be heard before making its determination to discharge the sworn juror (… cf. CPL 270.35[2][b]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, however, this procedural error, standing alone, was not inherently prejudicial … . Nevertheless, affording all sides an opportunity to be heard in this case might well have allowed counsel to oppose the court’s proposed disposition before it became a fait accompli. Further questioning of the juror might have revealed the underlying reasons for her uncertainty, thereby assisting the court in making an informed decision as to whether discharge of the juror was warranted.

Based on the Supreme Court’s very limited questioning of the subject juror, we find that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in discharging her. Assuming, as both parties contend, that the court’s authority to discharge the sworn juror must be considered under CPL 270.35 …, the court made little effort to ascertain whether the juror could, in fact, deliberate fairly and render an impartial verdict. In making such an important determination with respect to a sworn juror, “the court may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror based on her equivocal responses. Instead, it must be convinced that the juror’s knowledge will prevent her from rendering an impartial verdict” … . People v Owens, 2016 NY Slip Op 00993, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DISCHARGE OF SWORN JUROR WITHOUT PROPER INQUIRY AND INPUT FROM COUNSEL WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, DISCHARGE OF SWORN JUROR WITHOUT PROPER INQUIRY AND INPUT FROM COUNSEL WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO CONSECUTIVE TERMS EXCEEDING FOUR YEARS WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT.

The First Department determined that sentencing a youthful offender to consecutive sentences which exceeded four years was inconsistent with the underlying concept of youthful offender treatment:

 

By adjudicating defendant a youthful offender and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 4 years, to run consecutively to a sentence of one to three years on another YO adjudication, the court effectively imposed an aggregate term in excess of four years for two YO adjudications. The imposition of consecutive terms with an aggregate term of more than the normal YO maximum of four years “is inconsistent with the underlying concept of youthful offender treatment and it is unrealistic to conclude that one eligible for such treatment requires prolonged confinement to achieve the objectives of the legislation” … . People v Christopher P., 2016 NY Slip Op 00904, 1st Dept 2-9-11

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO MORE THAN FOUR YEARS INCONSISTENT WITH PURPOSE OF YOUTHUL OFFENDER TREATMENT)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO MORE THAN FOUR YEARS INCONSISTENT WITH PURPOSE OF YOUTHUL OFFENDER TREATMENT)/SENTENCING (SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO MORE THAN FOUR YEARS INCONSISTENT WITH PURPOSE OF YOUTHUL OFFENDER TREATMENT)

,

STATEMENTS MADE AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED.

in finding suppression of defendant’s statements was properly denied, the Fourth Department explained that an illegal arrest will not require the suppression of statements if the statements were “sufficiently attenuated” from the arrest:

 

… [E]ven assuming that defendant was illegally arrested, “defendant’s statements were sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest to be purged of the taint created by the illegality” … . “[A] confession that is made after an arrest without probable cause is not subject to suppression if the People adequately demonstrate that the inculpatory admission was attenuated’ from the improper detention; in other words, it was acquired by means sufficiently distinguishable from the arrest to be purged of the illegality’ ” … . In determining whether there has been attenuation, courts must consider “the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct” … .

Here, defendant was not interrogated until almost 2½ hours after his arrest … . He was given Miranda warnings prior to the interrogation, which is an “important” attenuation factor … . Before defendant was interrogated, a codefendant implicated defendant in at least one of the crimes, which constituted a significant intervening event and provided the police with probable cause … . People v Buchanan, 2016 NY Slip Op 00800, 4th Dept 2-5-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STATEMENTS AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED)/EVIDENCE (STATEMENTS AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED)/SUPPRESSION (STATEMENTS AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED)

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