You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Defense Counsel’s Failure to Move for Suppression Constituted Ineffective Assistance

The Fourth Department determined that the failure of defense counsel to make a suppression argument constituted ineffective assistance of counsel:

The facts of this case are similar to those in People v Clermont (22 NY3d 931), where the Court of Appeals held that the defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at his suppression hearing.  The Court reasoned that defense counsel’s failure to marshal the facts adduced at the hearing, “coupled with his failure to make appropriate argument in his motion papers or to submit a post-hearing memorandum, meant that the defense never supplied the hearing court with any legal rationale for granting suppression” (id. at 933).  * * *

Here, as in Clermont, suppression was the only viable defense strategy.  Nevertheless, defense counsel inexplicably failed to move for suppression of the cocaine or the knife seized by the police from defendant’s vehicle.  Defense counsel also failed to move for suppression of defendant’s incriminating statement to the officer about the knife, which the court thereafter suppressed in response to defendant’s pro se motion.  Like the attorney in Clermont, defense counsel did not marshal the facts for the court, made no legal argument regarding suppression, and submitted no post-hearing memorandum.  In short, as in Clermont, defense counsel “never supplied the hearing court with any legal rationale for granting suppression” (id. at 933).  People v Layou, 1309, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

Unlawful Imprisonment Charge Merged With Assault Charge

The Fourth Department determined the doctrine of judicial merger required dismissal of the unlawful imprisonment charge because it merged with the charged assault:

“Under the doctrine of judicial merger, an unlawful imprisonment or kidnapping that is incidental to and inseparable from the commission of another crime merges with such other crime” … .  In determining whether the merger doctrine applies herein, “our guiding principle is whether [defendant’s] restraint [of the victim] was so much the part of another substantive crime [, i.e., the crime of assault,] that the substantive crime could not have been committed without such acts [constituting the crime of unlawful imprisonment] and that independent criminal responsibility may not fairly be attributed to them” … .  Here, the brief “abduction” of the victim, i.e., the moment when defendant grabbed the victim and pulled him outside the dwelling at issue, was “merely ‘preliminary, preparatory, or concurrent action’ in relation to the ultimate crime [of assault]” …, and we thus conclude that the unlawful imprisonment count merged with the assault count… . People v James, 1314, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

,

Verdict Properly Set Aside Based Upon Trial Court’s Own Denial of Defendant’s Request for an Adjournment to Retain New Counsel/Criteria for Trial Court’s Setting Aside a Verdict Explained

The Fourth Department, after explaining the criteria for setting aside a verdict, ruled the trial court had properly set aside the verdict in this case due to the trial court’s own erroneous denial of defendant’s request for an adjournment to seek new counsel:

“Pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1), following the issuance of a verdict and before sentencing a court may set aside a verdict on ‘[a]ny ground appearing in the record which, if raised upon an appeal from a prospective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court’ ” … . “The power granted a Trial Judge is, thus, far more limited than that of an intermediate appellate court, which is authorized to determine not only questions of law but issues of fact . . . , to reverse or modify a judgment when the verdict is against the weight of the evidence . . . , and to reverse ‘[a]s a matter of discretion in the interest of justice’ ”… . * * *

In our view, the court’s refusal to grant defendant’s request for an adjournment was “an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” and effectively denied defendant the fundamental right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing …   On the date scheduled for suppression hearings, defense counsel, who had been retained by defendant’s family while defendant was incarcerated, withdrew defendant’s requests for suppression and sought an expedited trial without defendant’s knowledge or consent.  At the next court appearance, defendant requested an adjournment of the expedited trial to afford him time in which to retain another attorney.  The court, in denying that request, did not afford defendant “[a] reasonable time and a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice”…, particularly in view of the fact that the trial was expedited without defendant’s knowledge or consent… .  Inasmuch as we conclude that defendant was denied the fundamental right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing, reversal of the judgment of conviction on that ground would be required as a matter of law upon an appeal therefrom (see CPL 330.30 [1]), and the court therefore properly set aside the verdict. People v Rohadfox, 1367, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

Failure to Address Youthful Offender Eligibility Required Remittal

The Fourth Department determined the trial court did not consider whether the defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender and sent the matter back:

At sentencing, defense counsel made several applications for defendant to be treated as a youthful offender, but the court did not expressly rule on them; instead, the court imposed a sentence that was incompatible with youthful offender treatment.

“Upon conviction of an eligible youth, the court must order a [presentence] investigation of the defendant.  After receipt of a written report of the investigation and at the time of pronouncing sentence the court must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender” (CPL 720.20 [1]).  A sentencing court must determine whether to grant youthful offender status to every defendant who is eligible for it because, inter alia, “[t]he judgment of a court as to which young people have a real likelihood of turning their lives around is just too valuable, both to the offender and to the community, to be sacrificed in plea bargaining” … .  “[W]e cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the. . . [applications] as . . . denial[s] thereof” … .  Furthermore, even if the court had denied the applications, there is no information in the record from which we could ascertain whether the court properly did so in the exercise of its discretion, or whether it improperly acceded to the prosecutor’s plea conditions.  People v Potter, 1199, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

,

Failure to Turn Over Brady Material Until the Day of Trial Required Reversal

The Fourth Department determined the prosecution’s failure to turn over Brady material (911 tape recording) until the day of trial required reversal:

“To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material . . . In New York, where a defendant makes a specific request for [an item of discovery], the materiality element is established provided there exists a ‘reasonable possibility’ that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” … .

Here, the 911 recording is exculpatory because it includes the voice of an unidentified person referring to a white male suspect, and defendant herein is a black male.  Although defendant received the 911 recording as part of the Rosario material provided to him on the first day of trial, he was not “given a meaningful opportunity to use the exculpatory evidence”… . People v Carver, 1311, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

,

Counsel’s Failure to Object to References to Defendant’s Nickname Constituted Ineffective Assistance/Court’s Dismissal of an Entire Jury Panel Was Reversible Error

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction finding defense counsel ineffective for failure to object to the repeated references (by witnesses and the prosecutor) to the defendant’s nickname “killer.”  In addition, the Fourth Department determined the trial judge committed reversible error when he dismissed an entire jury panel:

Where, as here, a jury panel is “properly drawn and sworn to answer questions truthfully, there must be legal cause or a peremptory challenge to exclude a [prospective] juror” (…see CPL 270.05 [2]).  By dismissing the entire jury panel without questioning the ability of the individual prospective jurors to be fair and impartial …, the court deprived defendant of a jury chosen “at random from a fair cross-section of the community” (Judiciary Law § 500…). People v Collier, 8, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

, ,

Impeachment of Defendant With a Statement Made by Defendant’s Attorney Deemed Proper

The First Department determined the impeachment of the defendant with a statement made by the defendant’s attorney at arraignment was proper:

The court properly admitted a statement made at arraignment by defendant’s counsel, who was also trial counsel, to impeach defendant after he testified to a different version of the events … At the arraignment, the attorney stated that defendant was the source of the information, and the attorney was clearly acting as defendant’s authorized agent when she provided this information to the arraignment court for her client’s benefit …, notwithstanding her assertion at trial that she had inaccurately conveyed her client’s version of the incident. Introduction of the statements did not require the People to call counsel as a witness against her client … , and the People never sought to do so. People v Ortiz, 2014 NY Slip Op 00616, 1st Dept 2-4-14

 

,

Trial Court’s Failure to Address Defendant’s Requests to Proceed Pro Se Required Reversal

The First Department determined defendant had been deprived of his constitutional rights when the trial court failed to conduct a “dispassionate inquiry” in response to defendant’s repeated requests to proceed pro se:

A criminal defendant’s right to represent himself is a fundamental right guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions. “[F]orcing a lawyer upon an unwilling defendant is contrary to his basic right to defend himself if he truly wants to do so” … . The only function of the trial court, in assessing a timely request to proceed pro se, is to ensure that the waiver was made intelligently and voluntarily …. . This requirement is not satisfied “simply by repeated judicial entreaties that a defendant persevere with the services of assigned counsel, or by judicial observations that a defendant’s interests are probably better served through a lawyer’s representation” … .

Defendant’s requests to proceed pro se were denied by the court without any inquiry whatsoever. People v Lewis, 2014 NY Slip Op 00592, 1st Dept 2-4-14

 

No Reference to When Child-Pornography Images Downloaded/Therefore Consecutive Sentences Could Not Be Imposed

The Third Department determined that consecutive sentences could not be imposed for the downloading of child pornography without specific reference to the date and time of each download:

Consecutive sentences are authorized when “‘the facts demonstrate that the defendant’s acts underlying the crimes are separate and distinct'” … .  The determination as to whether defendant committed separate and distinct acts of possession turns upon when the images came into his possession … .  While the accusatory instrument and defendant’s plea allocution each specified the date and time upon which the images were retrieved from defendant’s computer, there was no information regarding defendant’s act of downloading the images.  Accordingly, consecutive sentences were not authorized in the absence of such information… . People v Pardy, 105529, 3rd Dept 1-30-14

 

Parolees May Move for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, the Second Department determined that parolees are “in custody” within the meaning of the 2011 amendments to the Drug Law Reform Act and, therefore, parolees may move for resentencing under the act:

In 2011, a New York State budget enactment consolidated and modernized several state agencies and created new departments (see L 2011, ch 62). This legislation merged the New York State Department of Correctional Services and the New York State Division of Parole into a single agency, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (see id.). At that time, CPL 440.46(1) was amended by changing “department of correctional services” to “department of corrections and community supervision,” so that now “[a]ny person in the custody of the department of corrections and community supervision,” otherwise qualified, could apply to be resentenced (CPL 440.46[1]). People v Brown, 2014 NY Slip Op 00524, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

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