You are here: / Criminal Law

CPL 330.30 Motions Based Upon Matters Outside the Record Properly Denied/Although Not the Case Here, Such Motions Might Be Deemed Premature CPL 440.10 Motions and, As Such, Considered by the Trial Court/Concurring/Dissenting Opinions Disagreed About Whether the Persistent Felony Offender Statute, Which Allows the Judge to Exercise Discretion in Applying the Statute, Violates Apprendi v New Jersey (Requiring Facts Upon Which an Enhanced Sentence May Be Based to Be Decided by the Jury Under a Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard)

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, determined that motions to set aside the verdict (Criminal Procedure Law [CPL] 330.30) made in two the cases before the court were properly denied because they raised issues which were outside the record. The court further determined that the persistent felony offender statute (PFO) at issue in one of the cases was properly applied. The court noted that, in some situations, 330.30 motions might be deemed (premature) motions to vacate the conviction (CPL 440.10) and considered by the trial court in that context, but no attempt to invoke CPL 440.10 was made here.  Concurring and dissenting opinions dealt with whether the persistent felony offender statute (PFO) violated Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466 (2000), because factual findings supporting an enhanced sentence are made by the judge, not the jury, and whether the motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that the courtroom was closed to the public for part of the trial should have been considered as a (premature) CPL 440.10 motion to set aside the conviction. People v Giles, 2014 NY Slip Op 08871, CtApp 12-18-14

 

, , ,

In a DWI Case, Operation Proved by Circumstantial Evidence

The Third Department determined circumstantial evidence the defendant had been driving while intoxicated was sufficient.  The defendant went to a witness' home seeking assistance after his car ended up in a ditch.  [Although not summarized here, the decision, which affirmed the conviction, also has in depth discussions of errors in juror selection (failure to address bias expressed by a juror re: a DWI case where peremptory challenges eventually exhausted), the criteria for juror disqualification when a juror is related to a witness but does not realize it until the witness testified, and related ineffective assistance claims.]:

A defendant need not be driving to operate a vehicle for purposes of the Vehicle and Traffic Law; it is enough if the evidence shows that he or she is behind the wheel with the engine running … . The testimony was that when defendant arrived on [a witness'] doorstep to request assistance with getting the car out of the ditch, he was alone and smelled of alcohol. In addition to the testimony of [witnesses] describing his efforts, defendant acknowledged that he was behind the wheel of the car, and that the car was running with the wheels spinning as he attempted to drive the car out of the ditch. These factors are sufficient to establish that defendant was operating a motor vehicle on a public highway … . People v Colburn, 2014 NY Slip Op 08875, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

Reference to Statute in Indictment Cures Any Omission from the Indictment’s Description of the Elements of the Offense

The Third Department noted that failure to include an element of an offense in the description of the offense in the indictment is cured by a reference (in the indictment) to the relevant statute:

To be sure, defendant's claim that the indictment at issue is jurisdictionally defective survives both his guilty plea and his waiver of the right to appeal … . That said, “[w]here an indictment count incorporates by reference the statutory provision applicable to the crime intended to be charged, it has been repeatedly held that this is sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge and, therefore, renders the count jurisdictionally valid” … .

Here, defendant pleaded guilty under count 1 of the indictment to the reduced charge of attempting promoting prison contraband in the first degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 205.25 [1]). While it is true that count 1 of the indictment did not allege that defendant “knowingly and unlawfully” introduced dangerous contraband into the correctional facility where he was incarcerated, said count did expressly incorporate by reference the provisions of Penal Law § 205.25 (1), thereby rendering such count jurisdictionally valid… . People v Cane, 2014 NY Slip Op 08879, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

,

Where Defendant Is Represented on a Pending Charge and Seeks Leniency by Cooperation with Police in the Investigation of An Unrelated Offense, the Police Cannot Question the Defendant About the Unrelated Offense in the Absence of Counsel Unless Defendant Affirmatively Waives His Right to Counsel In Counsel’s Presence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that defendant, who was represented by counsel in a pending criminal matter, should not have been questioned in the absence of counsel about another crime.  Defendant, in an attempt to gain leniency, told the police he knew that a friend had committed a stabbing. The police met with the defendant to “wire him up” for a meeting with his friend.  Defendant's attorney, Schwarz, knew defendant was meeting with the police for that purpose.  During the meeting, the defendant was questioned about the stabbing and eventually he admitted he had committed that crime.  He was then read his Miranda rights, which he waived.  The Court of Appeals held that none of the questioning about defendant's involvement with the stabbing should have be done without defendant's affirmative waiver of his right to counsel, in the presence of defendant's attorney:

Defendant relies on the rule, long established in New York, that “[o]nce an attorney enters the proceeding, the police may not question the defendant in the absence of counsel unless there is an affirmative waiver, in the presence of the attorney, of the defendant's right to counsel” … . The People respond that this rule does not apply here because the “proceeding” in which the police questioned defendant on …—their investigation of the supermarket stabbing ——was one that no attorney had entered. Schwarz, in the People's view, represented defendant only in the burglary case, about which he was not questioned.

We do not find this a viable distinction. The stabbing investigation cannot be neatly separated from Schwarz's representation of defendant in the burglary case. Defendant had pinned his hopes for a favorable result in the burglary case on his cooperation with the police investigation of the stabbing. Under these circumstances, Schwarz's duty to his client required him to concern himself with both cases.

Schwarz was not, of course, retained to defend the stabbing case: before the April 19 meeting, defendant had not been charged with the stabbing, and no such charge seemed likely. But Schwarz's obligation in defending the burglary case included an obligation to be alert to, and to avert if he could, the possibility that defendant's cooperation would hurt rather than help him. No responsible lawyer in Schwarz's situation would concern himself with the burglary case alone, indifferent to the disaster that might strike defendant if he incriminated himself in the stabbing.

We therefore conclude that defendant's right to counsel encompassed his conversations with police about the stabbing, as long as those conversations were part of an effort to obtain leniency in the burglary case in which Schwarz represented him. Thus, unless the right to counsel was waived, the police should not have questioned defendant about the stabbing in his lawyer's absence. People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08787, CtApp 12-17-14

 

,

Sex Offender Who Has Difficulty Controlling Sexual Urges, As Opposed to a Sex Offender Who Is Unable to Control Sexual Urges, Should Be Placed Under Strict and Intensive Supervision, Not Confined

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that respondent sex offender should not be confined in a mental health facility after serving his prison sentence, but rather should be placed under “strict and intensive supervision.”  After finding the “least restrictive alternative doctrine” does not apply to Article 10 (Mental Hygiene Law) proceedings, the Court of Appeals determined the evidence did not support the conclusion respondent was a “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement.”  The evidence demonstrated respondent had, with difficultly, been able to control his sexual urges, but did not demonstrate that he was unable to control them (the requirement for confinement):

The Mental Hygiene Law defines “mental abnormality” as “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (MHL § 10.03 [i] [emphasis added]). By contrast, a “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” is defined in the Mental Hygiene Law as “a person who is a detained sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the person is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” (MHL § 10.03 [e] [emphasis added]). The statute — which goes on to describe a “sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision” as a “detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality but is not a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” (MHL § 10.03 [r]) — clearly envisages a distinction between sex offenders who have difficulty controlling their sexual conduct and those who are unable to control it. The former are to be supervised and treated as “outpatients” and only the latter may be confined. Matter of State of New York v Michael M, 2014 NY Slip Op 08789, CtApp 12-17-14

 

Attempted Murder and Attempted Robbery Convictions, Under the Facts, Required Concurrent, Not Consecutive, Sentences—Applicable Law Described in Some Depth

The Second Department determined defendant, who was convicted of attempted murder and attempted robbery, must be sentenced to concurrent, not consecutive, terms of imprisonment for those two offenses.  The defendant displayed a handgun and demanded money from the victim.  When the victim refused, the defendant struck and shot the victim:

Penal Law § 70.25(2) provides that concurrent sentences must be imposed “for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other.” “Thus, sentences of imprisonment imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively (1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other” … . However, “trial courts retain consecutive sentence discretion when separate offenses are committed through separate acts, though they are part of a single transaction” … .

Here, consecutive sentences may not be imposed because the act which constituted the offense of attempted murder in the second degree was a material element of the offense of attempted robbery in the first degree. A person is guilty of attempted murder in the second degree when, with intent to commit murder, he or she engages in conduct which tends to cause the death of another person (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25[1]). A person is guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree, under the Penal Law section charged here, when he or she attempts to forcibly steal property and is armed with a deadly weapon (see Penal Law § 160.15[2]). A person forcibly steals when he or she, in the course of committing a larceny, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking of the property or to compel the owner to deliver the property (see Penal Law § 160.00[1], [2]). Here, the actus reus of the attempted murder charge was the firing of three shots at Moore, and the actus reus of the attempted robbery charge was the use or threatened use of physical force to attempt to steal property while armed with a deadly weapon. The act which constitutes attempted murder in the second degree is subsumed within the element of using force. Thus, the act constituting attempted murder in the second degree can be a material element of attempted robbery in the first degree … .

In addition, the People have failed to establish that the acts constituting the attempted robbery in the first degree were separate and distinct from the acts constituting the attempted murder in the second degree … . Here, consecutive sentences could not be imposed because it is impossible to determine whether the firing of three gun shots at Moore, which formed the basis of the verdict of guilt on the attempted murder charge, was also the use of force which formed the basis of the jury’s verdict of guilt on the attempted robbery charge … . Therefore, the People have failed to establish that the acts constituting attempted robbery in the first degree were separate and distinct from those constituting attempted murder in the second degree. People v Grant, 2014 NY Slip Op 08859, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

, , ,

Out-of-Court Statement Leading to Discovery of the Weapon Did Not Violate Defendant’s Right of Confrontation Because There Was No “Direct Implication” the Statement Involved the Defendant’s Possession of the Weapon

The Second Department determined that the right of confrontation issue was preserved for appeal because, although not raised directly, the issue was specifically determined by Supreme Court.  The court further determined that the testimony which alluded to an out-of-court statement leading to the discovery of a blood-covered knife did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation:

Contrary to the People’s contention, the Confrontation Clause (see US Const, 6th amend) issue is preserved for appellate review. While the issue was not “plainly present[ed]” to the Supreme Court …, the court’s ruling on the defendant’s objection demonstrates that the court specifically considered and resolved this issue … .

The defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him prohibits the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he [or she] was unavailable to testify and the defendant ha[s] had a prior opportunity for cross-examination” … . Here, however, Sergeant Tribble’s testimony and the subsequent testimony relating to the discovery of the weapon did not violate the Confrontation Clause, since there was no direct implication that the nontestifying witness told the police that the defendant possessed the knife, disposed of it, or tried to conceal it … . People v Richberg, 2014 NY Slip Op 08863, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

,

Even Though Probable Cause for a DWI Arrest Existed, the Arresting Officer Testified He Was Not Going to Arrest the Defendant Until He Found a Switchblade Knife During a Pat-Down Search—Therefore the Search Could Not Be Justified As a Search Incident to Arrest and the Switchblade Should Have Been Suppressed

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that a switch-blade found in a pat-down search of the defendant after a vehicle stop should have been suppressed. The way the defendant was driving and the officer’s observations of defendant after the stop provided probable cause for a DWI arrest.  However, at the suppression hearing, the arresting officer (Merino) testified that he was not going to arrest the defendant prior to the pat-down search and only arrested him because the knife was found.  The Court of Appeals held that the search, therefore, could not be a “search incident to arrest” and could not be otherwise justified:

It is not disputed that, before conducting the search, Merino could lawfully have arrested defendant for driving while intoxicated. And it is clear that the search was not unlawful solely because it preceded the arrest, since the two events were substantially contemporaneous (see Rawlings v Kentucky, 448 US 98, 111 [1980] [“Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search . . ., we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded the arrest rather than vice versa”]; People Evans, 43 NY2d 160, 166 [1977] [“The fact that the search precedes the formal arrest is irrelevant as long as the search and arrest are nearly simultaneous so as to constitute one event”]). Nor is it decisive that the police chose to predicate the arrest on the possession of a weapon, rather than on driving while intoxicated (see Devenpeck v Alford, 543 US 146 [2004]). The problem is that, as Merino testified, but for the search there would have been no arrest at all.

Where that is true, to say that the search was incident to the arrest does not make sense. It is irrelevant that, because probable cause existed, there could have been an arrest without a search. A search must be incident to an actual arrest, not just to probable cause that might have led to an arrest, but did not … . People v Reid, 2014 NY Slip Op 08759, CtApp 12-16-14

 

,

Overruling Long-Standing Precedent, The Court of Appeals Determined It Has the Power to Review the Summary Denial of a 440 Motion for Abuse of Discretion/The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in this Case/The Matter Was Sent Back for a Hearing

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, overruling long-standing precedent, held that the Court of Appeals has the power to review the summary denial of a motion to vacate a conviction based upon newly discovered evidence [Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.10(1)(g)]. The defendant had already completed his sentence for rape when he had trial evidence—hairs and fingernail scrapings—subjected to DNA analysis.  The DNA results excluded the defendant.  The trial court summarily denied the motion to vacate and the Appellate Division affirmed.  The Court of Appeals reversed and sent the matter back for a hearing:

…[T]his Court is empowered to conduct a review of the lower courts’ summary denial of a defendant’s CPL 440.10 (1) (g) motion, and to determine whether that denial constituted an abuse of discretion as a matter of law without running afoul of the jurisdictional limitations set forth in NY Constitution, article VI, § 3 (a). Although we are prohibited from weighing facts and evidence in noncapital cases, we are not precluded from exercising our “power to determine whether in a particular judgmental and factual setting there has been an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” because, in so doing, we are not “passing on facts as such, but rather considering them to the extent that they are a foundation for the application of law” … . * * *

On this record, there is a dispute between defendant and the People concerning the reliability of the mtDNA testing, what the results of such testing actually mean and the weight to be given those results in light of the eyewitness identification. As such, defendant should have been afforded a hearing so he could have at the very least an opportunity of “proving by a preponderance of the evidence every fact essential to support [his] motion” (CPL 440.30 [6]), including his assertion that had such DNA evidence been presented at trial, he would have received a more favorable verdict. We reach this conclusion not by weighing the facts or the inferences drawn therefrom, but by examining the parties’ submissions and concluding that the People failed to counter defendant’s prima facie showing that he was entitled to a hearing. Not every CPL 440.10 motion brought by a defendant will warrant a hearing, nor will every summary denial of such a motion constitute an abuse of discretion, but where, as here, there is significant DNA evidence favorable to the defendant and the People proffer no admissible evidence in opposition to that evidence, defendant is, at the very least, entitled to a hearing on his motion. People v Jones, 2014 NY Slip Op 08760, CtApp 12-16-14

 

, ,

Admission Into Evidence of Nontestifying Codefendant’s Grand Jury Testimony Violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding that the admission into evidence of the codefendant’s grand jury testimony violated the rule announced in Bruton v US, 391 US 123:

Under Bruton v United States, “a defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the facially incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider the confession only against the codefendant” … . Since the rule only applies where the codefendant’s statement was “incriminating on its face, and [not where it] became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial” …, the question before us is whether the codefendant’s grand jury testimony was facially incriminating as to defendant, rather than incriminating only when linked to other evidence. * * *

Although the codefendant’s grand jury testimony was intended as an innocent explanation of the events surrounding the alleged robbery, and admitted no wrongdoing, nevertheless it was “facially incriminating” as to defendant within the meaning of Bruton.

The codefendant’s narrative placed defendant with the codefendant throughout the relevant events and, specifically referring to defendant approximately 40 times, described defendant’s conduct. Among other things, the statement recounted that, after defendant’s return to the codefendant’s car following an absence to “get food,” the alleged robbery victim (an undercover officer) appeared at the car window, asked where the “stuff” was, and dropped prerecorded buy money (the property allegedly stolen in the charged robbery) into the car. This narrative suffices to create an inference that defendant, while outside the codefendant’s vehicle, had purported to set up a deal for a sale of contraband that was to culminate in the vehicle, but did not fulfill the deal once he entered the vehicle.  People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08765, 1st Dept 12-16-14

 

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