You are here: / Criminal Law

Resentencing Required—Sentencing Court Unaware It Had Discretion Re: Length of the Postrelease Supervision Period

The Second Department sent the matter back for resentencing because the judge was unaware he/she had the discretion as to the length of the postrelease period:

… [R]esentencing is required because the record supports the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court was unaware that it had discretion as to the length of the period of PRS. Specifically, the court stated that the law required it to impose a period of PRS of 5 years. In fact, the court had the authority to impose a period of PRS of between 2½ years and 5 years (Penal Law § 70.45[2][f]). People v Battee, 2015 NY Slip Op 05491, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

Superior Court Information Was Jurisdictionally Defective—The Offenses Were Not the Same As, or Lesser Included Offenses of, Those In the Felony Complaint

The Third Department determined defendant’s plea to a superior court information (SCI) could not stand because the crimes in the information were not the same as, or lesser included offenses of, those in the felony complaint:

… [T]he SCI was jurisdictionally defective in this case. The crimes charged in the SCI, to which defendant pleaded guilty, were required to be the same or lesser included offenses of those listed in the felony complaint … . However, the only crimes listed in the felony complaint were the class E felony of possessing a sexual performance by a child and two class A misdemeanors. The SCI, on the other hand, charged defendant with the class C felony of use of a child in a sexual performance and the class B felony of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree. Clearly, the latter crimes were not lesser included offenses of the former. Accordingly, due to this jurisdictional defect, we are constrained to conclude that the guilty plea must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court for further proceedings. People v O’Neill, 2015 NY Slip Op 05517, 3rd Dept 6-24-15

 

,

Defendant’s Waiver of 12-Person Jury Upheld

The First Department determined defendant had validly waived his right to be tried in front of a 12-person jury. During defendant’s trial, after the court had been closed for several days due to Hurricane Sandy, one of the jurors informed the court he was leaving town. The defendant, against the advice of his lawyer, was insistent that he wanted the trial to continue with 11 jurors:

The court noted on the record that the excused juror had informed the court that he had a flight scheduled for that day, and that the court had called the juror that morning but could not reach him. Defense counsel objected to the court’s discharge of the juror without first consulting with counsel. Counsel informed the court that, against her advice, defendant wanted deliberations to continue with the remaining 11 jurors. Defense counsel stated that she had told defendant “a number of times that I do not think we should go forward with 11,” but defendant was “extremely insistent,” was “tired of this process,” and did “not want to retry the case.” The court confirmed with defendant on the record that he wanted to continue with 11 jurors, and defendant executed a written waiver of a 12-person jury. Defense counsel also signed the written waiver.

Although the court should have given defense counsel an opportunity to be heard before it excused the juror (see CPL 270.35[2][b]), defendant entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to a 12-person jury … . Defense counsel stated that she had discussed with defendant the possibility of a retrial, and that defendant rejected that option … . The court questioned defendant on the record and confirmed that he had discussed his decision with counsel, and that he understood but rejected counsel’s advice. As defense counsel stated, defendant was insistent that deliberations continue with an 11-person jury. Defendant “must accept the decision he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made” … . People v Perry, 2015 NY Slip Op 05394, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

,

Insufficient Break Between “Unwarned” Statement and Statement Made Subsequently After the Miranda Warnings Were Given—Entire Statement Should Have Been Suppressed

The Fourth Department determined there was an insufficient break (10 minutes) between an “unwarned” inculpatory statement made by the defendant and a subsequent statement made after the Miranda warnings were given.  The entire statement should have been suppressed:

“When, as part of a continuous chain of events, a defendant is subjected to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings, any statements made in response as well as any additional statements made after the warnings are administered and questioning resumes must be suppressed” … . Where, however, “there is such a definite, pronounced break in the interrogation that the defendant may be said to have returned, in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning,” his or her statements in response to renewed questioning after he or she has received Miranda warnings and waived his or her constitutional rights may be admitted … . Here, the initial questioning by the second officer, although brief, produced an inculpatory statement directly related to the instant crime… , and the second interrogation, which produced another inculpatory statement, occurred less than 10 minutes later and in the same location … . Moreover, contrary to the People’s contention, the record does not establish that “a reasonable suspect in defendant’s position would have perceived a marked change in the tenor of his engagement with [the] police” … . We thus conclude that “it cannot be said that there was such a definite, pronounced break’ in the interrogation that defendant was returned to the position of one who was not under the influence of the initial improper questioning” … . People v Walker, 2015 NY Slip Op 05313, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Evidence of Prior Uncharged Offenses Involving the Same Behavior and Against the Same Victim as Alleged in the Charged Offense Deemed Admissible to Prove Motive, Intent and to Provide Necessary Background Information About the Nature of the Relationship Between the Victim and Defendant

The Fourth Department determined evidence of prior uncharged sexual abuse of the victim, which included actions attributed to the defendant in the charged offense (abuse when the victim was unconscious from alcohol intoxication), was properly admitted. The court found the uncharged crime evidence was admissible to prove intent and motive, and to provide background information about the nature of the relationship between the victim and defendant:

We reject defendant’s contention … that the court erred in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior uncharged sexual abuse of the victim which, according to the victim’s testimony, also occurred while she was unconscious from alcohol intoxication. “The general rule is that evidence of . . . uncharged crimes may not be offered to show defendant’s bad character or his propensity towards crime but may be admitted only if the acts help establish some element of the crime under consideration or are relevant because of some recognized exception to the general rule” … . Here, we conclude that the evidence of uncharged crimes was admissible to establish intent and motive under the first two exceptions specifically identified in Molineux’s illustrative and nonexhaustive list … . Specifically, the disputed evidence was relevant to the issue whether defendant intended to commit the instant crime for the purpose of sexual gratification (see Penal Law §§ 130.00 [3]; 130.65 [2]), and to establish defendant’s motive in providing a large quantity of alcohol to the victim. Consequently, “the evidence in this case was not propensity evidence, but was probative of [defendant’s] motive and intent to [sexually] assault his victim” … . Moreover, the evidence was also admissible under a more recently recognized Molineux exception, i.e., to “provide[] necessary background information on the nature of the relationship” between defendant and the victim … and thus, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the People to present the evidence at issue … . People v Leonard, 2015 NY Slip Op 05314. 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

Placing Defendant in the Back of a Patrol Car Did Not Constitute De Facto Arrest

In affirming the conviction, the Fourth Department noted that placing the defendant in the back seat of a patrol car did not, under the circumstances, amount to a de facto arrest. Rather “the temporary detention of defendant was proper as ‘part of a continuum of permissible police intrusions in response to escalating evidence of criminal activity’ ;”

We conclude that “the police action fell short of the level of intrusion upon defendant’s liberty and privacy that constitutes an arrest” … . Here, the brief investigative detention of defendant by the police was “justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime [had] been, [was] being or [was] about to be committed” …, i.e., “that quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious [person] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand” … . Indeed, after the man with defendant displayed the contents of the duffel bag, the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant and the other man had committed a crime. The established circumstances at that point were that the officer had received a report that suspicious individuals carrying bags had gone behind a residence in an area where burglaries targeting copper pipe had previously occurred; the officer observed two men matching the description coming down a driveway carrying bags; the two men admitted that they were walking around looking for copper plumbing; and the contents of the duffel bag revealed their actual possession of numerous copper pipes of various sizes with no indication of other scrap metals. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the temporary detention of defendant was proper as “part of a continuum of permissible police intrusions in response to escalating evidence of criminal activity” … . Here, “the police diligently pursued a minimally intrusive means of investigation likely to confirm or dispel suspicion quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant” … , and “a less intrusive means of fulfilling the police investigation was not readily apparent” … . People v Howard, 2015 NY Slip Op 05350, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Motion to Vacate Conviction Should Not Have Been Granted—Hearsay Statement Exonerating Defendant Did Not Meet the Criteria for a Statement Against Penal Interest and Should Not Have Been Admitted—The Underlying Evidence Was Not Newly Discovered Because Defendant Was Aware of It at the Time of Trial–Defendant Did Not Provide the Evidence at Trial Because He Feared Retaliation by Gang Members

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been granted.  The hearsay statement made by Jackson which exonerated defendant did not meet the criteria for a statement against penal interest and should not have been admitted in evidence.  The evidence involved was not newly discovered.  Defendant did not provide the evidence at trial out of fear of retaliation by gang members:

… [T]he court erred in admitting Jackson’s statement in evidence at the hearing, and, in any event, the statement would not be admissible at trial. This is vital because ” [i]mplicit in th[e] ground for vacating a judgment of conviction is that the newly discovered evidence be admissible’ ” … . Here, the court admitted the statement at the hearing as a declaration against penal interest, but it is well settled that “[f]or a statement against penal interest to be admissible the interest compromised must be such as to all but rule out’ motive to falsify, [and] the declarant must be conscious of the consequences of his statement at the time it is made . . . Those assurances of probative value, which might in a proper case substitute for cross-examination, were not present in this case” … . Although a less stringent standard applies where, as here, the declaration is offered by defendant to exonerate himself rather than by the People, to inculpate him… , none of the requirements was met here. To the contrary, the statement of the gang member was provided only after he was assured that he would not be prosecuted for any information that he provided, thus removing any indicia of reliability regarding that information… . …

Even assuming, arguendo, that Jackson’s statement was properly admitted at the hearing, and further assuming, arguendo, that the information he provided is material, noncumulative, and does not merely impeach or contradict the record evidence, we conclude that the information was known to defendant at the time of the trial … . We cannot agree with the court that it was in effect “newly discovered” based on defendant’s fear of physical harm to himself and his family. “A defendant who chooses to withhold evidence should not be given a new trial on the basis of the evidence thus withheld’ ” … . Therefore, the evidence does not satisfy the requirement that it was “discovered since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial” … . People v Backus, 2015 NY Slip Op 05330, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Attorney’s Telling the Court There Was No Reason Sentencing Should Not Go Forward in the Face of Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Withdraw His Guilty Plea Adversely Affected Defendant’s Right to Counsel

The Second Department ordered that a hearing be held on defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and that another lawyer be assigned. When defendant made his pro se motion to withdraw his plea, his attorney told the court there was no reason sentencing should not go forward. The attorney’s taking a position adverse to the defendant’s adversely affected the defendant’s right to counsel:

The defendant’s right to counsel was adversely affected when his attorney took a position adverse to his … . The County Court should have assigned a different attorney to represent the defendant before it determined the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for a hearing on the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, for which the defendant shall be appointed new counsel, and for a new determination of the motion thereafter. People v King, 2015 NY Slip Op 05209, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

Failure to Pronounce the Amount of Restitution at Sentencing Survives Waiver of Appeal and Requires Vacation of the Sentences and Remittal

The Second Department noted that county court’s failure to pronounce the amount of restitution at sentencing survived waiver of appeal and required vacation of the sentences and remittal for that purpose:

Since the County Court failed to pronounce the sentences of restitution in open court, the sentences must be vacated and the matter remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for resentencing in accordance with CPL 380.20 … . People v Guadalupe, 2015 NY Slip Op 05206, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

Concurrent Inclusory Counts Dismissed Despite Lack of Preservation

The Fourth Department determined the lesser inclusory counts of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree must be dismissed, despite lack of preservation:

… [C]ounts four, five and seven must be dismissed as lesser inclusory counts of count three, vehicular manslaughter in the first degree. Initially, we note that defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for our review is of no moment because preservation is not required … . With respect to the merits, “concurrent counts are inclusory when the offense charged in one is greater than that charged in the other and when the latter is a lesser offense included within the greater” … . Thus, where, as here, “it is impossible to commit a particular crime without concomitantly committing, by the same conduct, []other offense[s] of lesser grade or degree, the latter [are], with respect to the former, . . . lesser included offense[s]” … . Because it is impossible to commit the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree under Penal Law § 125.13 (4), without concomitantly committing the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree under Penal Law § 125.12, or without concomitantly committing the crime of, inter alia, driving while ability impaired by drugs under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4), the latter two crimes are inclusory concurrent counts of the former crime. We therefore modify the judgment by dismissing the three counts of the indictment charging the latter two crimes. People v Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 04954, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

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