You are here: / Criminal Law

People’s Delay In Providing Bill of Particulars Did Not Require Dismissal Under Speedy Trial Statute

The Fourth Department determined that the People’s delay in providing a bill of particulars did not require dismissal of the indictment pursuant to the speedy trial statute:

…[D]efendant asserted that the People’s bill of particulars was due on January 7, 2009—15 days after defendant’s request (see CPL 200.95 [2])—but that it was not served until August 10, 2009.  According to defendant, the time period from January 7 to August 10, which exceeds six months, constitutes postreadiness delay that should be charged to the People, thus warranting dismissal under CPL 30.30.  We reject that contention. Prior to their failure to serve a timely bill of particulars, the People announced their readiness for trial on the record, and “[f]ailing to serve a bill of particulars is in no way inconsistent with the prosecution’s continued readiness” … .  We addressed a similar contention in People v Runion (107 AD2d 1080), determining that “[t]he court should not have granted the motion made under CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment because of the delays of the prosecutor, after she had announced her readiness for trial, in providing discovery materials and in serving a supplemental bill of particulars.  Defendant’s remedies for such delays do not include dismissal under CPL 30.30” (id. at 1080).  People v Griffin, 1154, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

,

Prosecutorial Misconduct Noted (Conviction Upheld However)

In affirming defendant’s conviction, the Fourth Department noted its agreement with defendant’s assertions of prosecutorial misconduct:

We agree with defendant that it was improper for the prosecutor to remark that a witness was afraid of defendant inasmuch as that was not a fair comment on the evidence … .  We further agree with defendant that the prosecutor improperly used defendants past crimes of violence to suggest that the witness had “a reason to be afraid.”  It is fundamental that the function of crossexamining a defendant about his or her prior criminal, vicious, or immoral acts “is solely to impeach [the defendant’s] credibility as a witness” … .  Nevertheless, we conclude that the prosecutor’s isolated remarks were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial …, particularly considering that this was a bench trial… .  People v King, 1135, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

Shooting Accomplished With Two Weapons Constituted a Single Continuing Offense/Indictment Not Duplicitous

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined a shooting accomplished with more than one weapon did not constitute two distinct offenses, but rather constituted a continuing offense, and, therefore, the indictment was not duplicitous:

It is well established that, “ ‘[w]here an offense may be committed by doing any one of several things, the indictment may, in a single count, group them together and charge the defendant with having committed them all, and a conviction may be had on proof of the commission of any one of the things, without proof of the commission of the others’ ” … .  Contrary to the position of the dissent, we conclude that the evidence at trial established that the multiple shots fired from two separate firearms “constitute[d] a single uninterrupted assault rather than a series of distinct criminal acts . . . , and the assault ‘occurred over a short time frame, without apparent abeyance, and was triggered by a single incident of anger’ ” … .  “The fact that more than one dangerous instrument allegedly was used by the defendant[], and more than one [shot] was [fired] causing the [victim] several injuries, does not transform this single criminal incident into multiple assaults or acts of [reckless endangerment] which must be charged by separate counts” … .  We respectfully disagree with the position of the dissent that there were separate impulses with an abeyance between them.  Rather, the evidence established that defendant assaulted the victim and his fiancée in an attempt to seek revenge for the fiancée’s alleged assault on defendant’s sister. There was one motive and one impulse:  to seek revenge.  We see no distinction between a situation in which an assaulting defendant takes the time to reload one weapon and one in which the assaulting defendant takes the time to obtain a second weapon with the single impulse of continuing the ongoing assault.

With respect to the count of reckless endangerment in the first degree, the conduct encompassed by that count was the act of endangering the life of the victim’s fiancée, who was in the vicinity of the victim the entire time defendant was shooting at the victim. “Where . . . a crime by its nature as defined in the Penal Law may be committed either by one act or by multiple acts and can be characterized as a continuing offense over time, the indictment may charge the continuing offense in a single count” … .  Under the circumstances of this case, the crime of reckless endangerment “involved a continuing offense” and could therefore encompass multiple acts in one count without being duplicitous … .  In our view, the fact that the multiple shots were fired from two separate firearms did not transform this continuing offense into two separate offenses.  We disagree with the dissent’s assumption that the fiancée was “potentially out of harm’s way” when she sought refuge in a vehicle during the barrage of gunshots inasmuch as the vehicle was still in the vicinity of the gunshots.  “[R]eckless endangerment is a conduct specific . . . crime,” and here the conduct underlying that count of the indictment was the firing of multiple gunshots in the vicinity of the fiancée … .  We thus conclude that the indictment was not rendered duplicitous by the court’s instruction that the jury could find defendant guilty of the assault and reckless endangerment charges if it found that defendant used either firearm or both.   We reject the view of the dissent that “ ‘there were two distinct shooting incidents’ ” … .  People v Flanders, 963, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

Criteria for CPL 440.20 Motion Explained/Predicate Offenses Must Run Concurrently

The Fourth Department noted the trial court applied the wrong criteria to defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate his consecutive sentences and determined defendant’s sentences must run concurrently.  Either the robbery or forgery count could serve as the predicate for the felony assault count and therefore the sentences for the predicate counts must run concurrently with the sentence for felony assault:

…[T]he court erred in denying the motion on the ground that defendant could have raised this issue on his direct appeal.  Mandatory denial of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 is required only when the issue “was previously determined on the merits upon an appeal from the judgment or sentence” (CPL 440.20 [2]), which in this case it was not … .  The court erred in conflating the provisions of CPL 440.10 with those of CPL 440.20.  The procedural bar set forth in CPL 440.10 (2) (c) “applies only to motions made pursuant to section 440.10, and it is undisputed that the instant motion was made pursuant to section 440.20” … .

We agree with defendant that the consecutive sentences for the robbery and forgery counts are illegal under the facts of this case. The indictment and charge to the jury set forth that either count could serve as the predicate for the count of felony assault, and thus the predicate counts must run concurrently with the count of felony assault … .  The sentences imposed on the counts of robbery and forgery must therefore also run concurrently… . People v Povoski, 1050.1, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

,

References to Counsel Did Not Constitute an Unequivocal Request for Counsel

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s references to an attorney did not amount to an unequivocal request for counsel such that questioning should cease:

The right to counsel attaches, inter alia, “when a person in custody requests to speak to an attorney or when an attorney who is retained to represent the suspect enters the matter under investigation” … .  Here, defendant did not ask to speak to an attorney at any point during the police interrogation.  Defendant’s statements to the effect that he had an attorney and his questions whether he should have an attorney present were not an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel … .  Further, defendant failed to “present[] evidence establishing that he was in fact represented by counsel at the time of interrogation, as defendant contended” … .  Although defendant indicated that he had a lawyer in connection with his marital separation, we conclude that the lawyer “was not retained ‘in the matter at issue’ ” … .  Contrary to the further contention of defendant, “the record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that the statements at issue were not rendered involuntary by reason of any alleged coercion by the police” … . People v Henry, 1096, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

,

Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding Affirmed

The Third Department affirmed County Court’s upward adjustment of defendant’s sex offender status from a presumptive level I to a level III.  Defendant had pled guilty to a course of sexual conduct with a young girl entrusted to his care spanning five years:

“An upward departure from a presumptive risk classification is justified when an aggravating factor exists that is not otherwise adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines and the court finds that such factor is supported by clear and convincing evidence” … .  The circumstances underlying these charges as well as defendant’s past misconduct may be considered within the context of this proceeding … .  Here, additional factors established by the record, not adequately taken into account by the guidelines, included defendant’s disregard and abuse of other children even younger than the victim who were also entrusted to his care, his mental instabilities, and the repeated and lengthy nature of his conduct toward the victim.  Accordingly, we find that the record sufficiently supports County Court’s upward departure from the presumptive risk level… .  People v Muirhead, 511847, 3rd Dept 10-31-13

 

, ,

Defense Counsel’s Statement Defendant “Most Likely” Would Not Be Deported Based on a Guilty Plea Did Not Amount to Ineffective Assistance

The Third Department determined that defense counsel’s statement that the defendant “most likely” would not be deported based on his guilty plea to a misdemeanor did not constitute ineffective assistance. Defendant had subsequently been detained by immigration officials for deportation:

…[D]efendant was required to establish both ‘that counsel’s performance was deficient’ and ‘that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense'” … .  Here, the record indeed makes clear that defendant was concerned about the possibility of being deported.  The record does not, however, establish that defendant was given erroneous advice regarding the potential immigration consequences associated with his guilty plea. People v Obeya, 105313, 3rd Dept 10-31-13

 

,

People Could Not Appeal Judge’s Vacation of Defendant’s Conviction and Sentencing as a Youthful Offender—No Statute Allows Such an Appeal

In dismissing the People’s appeal, the Second Department explained that there was no statutory right for an appeal of the judge’s vacating defendant’s conviction and sentencing defendant as a youthful offender.  The only vehicle for the People was an article 78 prohibition proceeding:”

The Criminal Procedure Law expressly enumerates and describes the orders appealable by the People to the Appellate Division in a criminal case (see CPL 450.20…), and “[n]o appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless specifically provided for by statute” … . As no statute authorizes an appeal by the People to the Appellate Division from an order, in effect, vacating a conviction and adjudicating a defendant a youthful offender (see CPL 450.20), the People’s appeal must be dismissed …. The proper vehicle for challenging the Supreme Court’s determination is a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition… . People v Tony C, 2013 NY Slip Op 07055, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

,

Anders Brief Rejected

In finding an “Anders” brief insufficient, the Second Department wrote:

The brief submitted by the appellant’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738) is deficient because it fails to adequately recite the underlying facts in the case and analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal … . Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel acted “as an active advocate on behalf of his . . . client” …, we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant… . People v Francis, 2013 NY Slip Op 07058, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

Curtailing of Defense Counsel’s Summation Argument Re: Lack of Motive Was (Harmless) Error

Although the Second Department found the error harmless, the court noted that the trial court improperly curtailed defense counsel’s summation argument concerning the lack of a motive.  People v Papas, 2013 NY Slip Op 07065, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

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