You are here: / Criminal Law

Good Time Credit Should Be Deducted From the Two-Year Sentence Cap Imposed Under Penal Law 70.30 (2) (b), Not from the Longer Aggregate Term to Which the Two-Year Statutory Cap Was Applied

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals determined that where aggregate one-year consecutive sentences are capped at 2 years pursuant to Penal Law section 70.30 (2) (b), jail time and good time credits should be applied to the two-year period, not the longer aggregate term on which the two-year cap was imposed:

Having determined that Penal Law § 70.30 (2) (b) imposes a two-year aggregate term of imprisonment, we turn to whether this two-year aggregate term may be reduced by jail time and good time credit a prisoner has earned while incarcerated.  Penal Law § 70.30 (3) (b) and (4) (b) provide that, where a prisoner is serving consecutive definite sentences, jail time and good time credit must be applied against the prisoner’s aggregate term of imprisonment (see Penal Law § 70.30 [3] [b]; [4] [b] [emphasis added]), although good time credit may not exceed one third of that aggregate term (see id. at [4] [b]; Correction Law § 804 [1]).

Considering these directives together with section 70.30 (2) (b), it follows that, in cases where the two-year limit on consecutive definite sentences applies, jail time and good time credit must be applied against the two-year aggregate term rather than the aggregate term imposed by the sentencing court. Under such circumstances, correctional authorities should calculate the time to be served under the sentences by reducing the two-year aggregate term by the available jail time credit and any good time credit that does not exceed 243 days (or one-third of the two-year aggregate term) (see Penal Law § 70.30 [3] [b]; [4] [b]).  People ex rel Ryan… v Cheverko…, 183, CtApp 11-21-13

 

People Should Not Have Been Allowed to Reopen Pretrial Suppression Hearing

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, the Court of Appeals determined the People should not have been allowed to reopen a suppression hearing and present additional evidence after the hearing officer had ruled the seized evidence, including a handgun, must be suppressed.  The key inquiry is whether the People had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence of the dispositive issues at the hearing.  If so, the hearing cannot be reopened, either after trial (on remand after an appeal) or, as in this case, at the pretrial stage:

In People v Havelka (45 NY2d 636 [1978]), we held that the People, if afforded a full and fair opportunity to present evidence of the dispositive issues at a suppression hearing, are not entitled to a remand after appeal for a reopened hearing.  We hold that the principles underlying Havelka have equivalent force in the pretrial setting, and preclude a trial judge from reopening a suppression hearing to give the People an opportunity to shore up their evidentiary or legal position absent a showing that they were deprived of a full and fair opportunity to be heard. People v Kevin W, 187, CtApp 11-21-13

 

,

Plea Allocution Negated Essential Element of Offense/Error, though Unpreserved, Required Reversal

The Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction because the plea colloquy negated an essential element of the offense.  The defendant pled guilty to rape 3rd (Penal Law 130.25(3)), the so-called “date rape” statute. The statute requires a lack of consent by the victim, not a lack of capacity to consent (caused by drugs, for example). The plea allocution indicated only a lack of capacity to consent.  Even though the error was not preserved, the Court of Appeals determined the case fell within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement recognized in Lopez (71 NY2d at 666) where the court fails to ensure the guilty plea is knowing and voluntary:

Penal Law § 130.25 (3) addresses “so-called date rape or acquaintance rape situations [where] there [might] be consent to various acts leading up to the sexual act, but at the time of the act, the victim clearly says no or otherwise expresses a lack of consent” … .  Accordingly, the statutory provision requires the victim to have “clearly expresse[d] an unwillingness to engage in the sexual act in such a way that a neutral observer would have understood that the victim was not consenting” … .

Despite the statute’s plain terms, questions posed by the prosecutor during the brief colloquy indicate an intention to elicit from defendant that the complainant was unable to consent because she was incapacitated.  Moreover, the court’s single query during the factual allocution suggests that the court similarly misunderstood that key element of the crime.  In an apparent attempt to establish a causal relationship between thr complainant’s incapacity and her lack of consent, the court asked defendant, “[a]nd [the complainant] didn’t give you consent because she took too much medication and she has a mental illness, correct?”  By answering in the affirmative, defendant unequivocally negated an element of the crime to which he was pleading guilty.  People v Worden, 203, CtApp 11-21-13

 

,

Defendant’s Waiver of His Right to Appeal, Which Included His Signing a Printed Form Used by Rockland County, Was Invalid

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid:

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid … . Although the defendant signed a Rockland County pre-printed form waiver, as we have previously stated, this form “contained erroneous statements with regard to the waiver of the right to appeal” and should not have been utilized … . The Supreme Court’s terse colloquy at the plea allocution failed to sufficiently advise the defendant of the nature of his right to appeal. Further, the defendant never orally confirmed that he grasped the concept of the appeal waiver and the nature of the right he was forgoing … . Under these circumstances, the record does not establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal.  People v Salgado, 2013 NY Slip Op 07755, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

,

Defendant’s Flight Did Not Justify Police Pursuit and Entry Into Defendant’s Apartment—Evidence Properly Suppressed

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s suppression of evidence.  Based upon a confidential informant’s vague description of a man who was about to be part of a drug sale, a police officer followed the defendant. The defendant started running and threw a small object away.  The defendant then entered an apartment with a key.  The police ultimately broke the door down and saw the defendant throw bags of marijuana and heroin out the window.   A subsequent search warrant turned up more drugs. The Second Department wrote:

“Police pursuit of an individual significantly impede[s]’ the person’s freedom of movement and thus must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” … . Flight, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, could provide the predicate necessary to justify pursuit … . “Flight alone, however, or even in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might justify a police request for information is insufficient to justify pursuit because an individual has a right to be let alone and refuse to respond to police inquiry” … .

Here, there were no specific circumstances indicating that the defendant might be engaged in criminal activity. The fact that the defendant matched the extremely vague description given by the informant of someone who would conduct a drug transaction somewhere in the vicinity, sometime later that day, was not sufficiently indicative of criminal activity … . * * *

Moreover, the detective compounded the unlawful pursuit by entering the apartment without consent or probable cause and exigent circumstances … . While retreat into one’s home cannot thwart an otherwise proper arrest set in motion in a public place, probable cause for the arrest is required … . When the detective entered the apartment, he did not have probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime. Accordingly, all of the physical evidence was properly suppressed.  People v Nunez, 2013 NY Slip Op 07753, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

Handcuffing Defendant Constituted an Arrest/Defendant’s Actions Did Not Justify Use of Handcuffs

The First Department, contrary to the suppression-hearing court, determined the act of handcuffing the defendant constituted an arrest.  [The matter was sent back to allow the hearing court to determine whether a radio transmission from a fellow officer provided probable cause for the arrest, an issue the hearing court had not ruled upon.]:

…[W]e reject the People’s argument that defendant was not under arrest at the point when he was handcuffed. Although the use of handcuffs is not dispositive of whether an investigatory detention on reasonable suspicion has been elevated to an arrest, handcuffing is permissible in such a detention only when justified by the circumstances (see People v Acevedo, 179 AD2d 465, 465-66 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 79 NY2d 996 [1992]). In this case, the police had no reason to believe that defendant was either armed or dangerous. Nor was there any indication on the record that defendant offered any resistance prior to the handcuffing, or gave the police any reason to believe that he might flee. The fact that defendant was “a little resistant” when told to put up his hands is not, on its own, sufficient to establish that the officers had any difficulty restraining defendant. Rather, like Acevedo, this case presents a situation in which the officers’ initial use of handcuffs was not warranted by the threat confronting them…, so that the detention exceeds the proper bounds of an intrusion made on less than probable cause. People v Blanding, 2013 NY Slip Op 07692, 1st Dept 11-19-13

 

, ,

Experts’ Use of Unreliable Hearsay in Article 10 Trial Violated Due Process

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera (with a concurring opinion) determined the use of unreliable hearsay by the People ‘s experts in an Article 10 civil commitment trial of a convicted sex offender violated the offender’s right to due process of law.  The court explained that hearsay related to convictions was reliable, hearsay supported by admissions is reliable, hearsay related to acquittals and otherwise unsupported uncharged accusations is unreliable, and hearsay about criminal charges that result in neither acquittal nor conviction require close scrutiny (probative value versus prejudicial effect):

Due process requires any hearsay basis evidence to meet minimum requirements of reliability and relevance before it can be admitted at an article 10 proceeding.  In article 10 trials, hearsay basis evidence is admissible if it satisfies two criteria.  First, the proponent must demonstrate through evidence that the hearsay is reliable.  Second, the court must determine that “the probative value in helping the jury evaluate the [expert’s] opinion substantially outweighs [its] prejudicial effect” (cf. Fed Rules Evid rule 703).  These reliability and substantial relevance requirements provide a necessary counterweight to the deference juries may accord hearsay evidence simply because an expert has propounded it.  The requirements prevent an expert from serving as a passive conduit for hearsay, yet allow the jury to evaluate expert opinions by considering reliable and probative evidence.  This rule gives the judge an active role in managing the article 10 proceeding and preserving its integrity.  Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y, 182, CtApp 11-19-13

 

Statute Which Elevates Criminal Possession of a Weapon to a C Felony, Even When Possession is in the Home, Does Not Violate the Second Amendment

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined that the statute which elevates possession of a weapon when previously convicted of a crime to a class C felony, even if possession is in the home, did not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms:

Intermediate scrutiny requires us to ask whether a challenged statute bears a substantial relationship to the achievement of an important governmental objective (Clark v Jeter, 486 US 456, 461 [1988]).  Penal Law § 265.03 (3), making it a class C felony for anyone previously convicted of any crime to possess an unlicensed, loaded firearm in his home or elsewhere, easily passes this test.  The statute does not, it must be remembered, forbid anyone convicted of any misdemeanor from possessing a gun on pain of class C felony punishment; most misdemeanants — including the present defendant, assuming that resisting arrest was his only prior crime — are eligible for licenses to have guns in their homes.

It is beyond dispute that preventing the criminal use of firearms is an important government objective; and keeping guns away from people who have shown they cannot be trusted to obey the law is a means substantially related to that end.  More specifically, to punish severely a convicted criminal who, though eligible for a license, again violates the law by obtaining an unlicensed gun is a means well-suited to the end of assuring that lawbreakers do not have firearms.  People v Hughes, 184, CtApp 11-19-13

 

“Home or Business Exception” to Criminal Possession of a Weapon Does Not Apply to Defendant Previously Convicted of a Crime

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined the “home or business exception” to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree did not apply when the defendant has been previously been convicted of any crime:

…[T]his appeal requires us to interpret the “home or business” exception to the third-degree weapon possession statute, Penal Law § 265.03 (3).  Under that statute:

“A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree when:” (3) such person possesses any loaded firearm.  Such possession shall not, except as provided in subdivision one . . . of section 265.02 of this article, constitute a violation of this subdivision if such possession takes place in such person’s home or place of business.”

Section 265.02 (1), to which the above quoted language refers, defines criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.  Under Penal Law § 265.02 (1), a person is guilty of third degree criminal possession when he or she “commits the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree . . . and has been previously convicted of any crime.”  The Appellate Division read the reference in section 265.03 (3) to section 265.02 (1) as creating an exception to the home or business exception — i.e., to make that exception inapplicable when the defendant has a previous criminal conviction.  We agree with this reading of the statute.  People v Jones, 185, CtApp 11-19-13

 

, ,

Defendant Who Was Not Informed His Guilty Plea Would Result in Deportation Was Unable to Demonstrate He Was Prejudiced by the Omission

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction, in spite of his counsel’s failure to inform him his guilty plea would result in deportation. The court determined that, under the specific facts of the case, there was no “reasonable probability” defendant would not have entered a guilty plea had he been informed of the mandatory deportation:

Under the State and Federal Constitutions, a defendant has the right to the effective assistance of counsel (see US Const, 6th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6…).  Under the Federal Constitution, defense counsel is ineffective when his or her performance “f[a]ll[s] below an objective standard of reasonableness” under “prevailing professional norms” (Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687-688 [1984]).  Even if counsel’s performance is deficient, however, the defendant’s conviction will not be reversed unless “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different” (id. at 694-695).  In the plea context, the defendant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … .  Whether the defendant can show such a “reasonable probability” will often turn, as it does here, on credibility determinations which, if they have support in the record, we cannot review… . * * *

…[W]e conclude that there is support for the lower courts’ determination that defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that, if counsel had informed him that he was certain to be deported as a result of his guilty plea, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial… .  People v Hernandez, 211, CtApp 11-19-13

 

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