You are here: / Criminal Law

THE COVID TOLL OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE RENDERED THE INDICTMENT TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined that the COVID toll of the speedy trial statute rendered the indictment timely:

Contrary to the determination of the County Court, while it was in effect, Executive Order No. 202.87 constituted a toll of the time within which the People must be ready for trial for the period from the date a felony complaint was filed through the date of a defendant’s arraignment on the indictment, with no requirement that the People establish necessity for a toll in each particular case … .

Because Executive Order No. 202.87 served to toll the speedy trial statute, the period from December 30, 2020, to January 25, 2021, was not chargeable to the People … . People v Fuentes, 2024 NY Slip Op 02933, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: The Executive Order imposing the COVID toll of the speedy trial statute rendered the indictment in this case timely.

Same issue and result in People v Lawson, 2024 NY Slip Op 02937, Second Dept 5-29-24.

Same Issue and result in People v McPhaul, 2024 NY Slip Op 02939, Second Dept 5-29-24.

 

, ,

THE NEGOTIATED PLEA REQUIRED NO POST-PLEA ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AFTER THE PLEA BUT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS AND THE RECORDS SEALED; THE POST-PLEA ARRESTS WERE THEREFORE A NULLITY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE SENTENCING JUDGE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant’s sentence was based upon post-plea arrests which resulted in dismissal on speedy trial grounds and for which the records had been sealed. Criminal records sealed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 160.50(1) have thereby been rendered a nullity. Therefore the sealed proceedings can not be the basis for a sentence:

… [T]he defendant … pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm … and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree …  as part of a negotiated disposition. It was agreed that if the defendant successfully completed one year of interim probation and complied with certain conditions during that time, including a no-arrest condition, the criminal possession of a firearm charge would be dismissed and he would be sentenced to a conditional discharge on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. However, if the defendant failed to satisfy the conditions, he would be sentenced to a one-year term of imprisonment on the conviction of criminal possession of a firearm.

It is undisputed that during the term of the defendant’s interim probation, he was arrested three times. The proceedings with regard to those arrests were dismissed on speedy trial grounds and the records sealed. However, after an Outley hearing … , the Supreme Court determined that there was “a legitimate basis for [the defendant’s] arrest” and that the defendant failed to comply with the terms of his interim probation. Based upon that determination, the court sentenced the defendant to a one-year term of imprisonment on the conviction of criminal possession of a firearm. * * *

The proceedings resulting from the defendant’s postplea arrests were dismissed on speedy trial grounds, which were terminations in his favor … , and the records of those proceedings were sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50(1). Thus, the “arrest[s] and prosecution[s] [are] deemed a nullity” … , and the sealed records were “not available for consideration at sentencing” … . People v Desdunes, 2024 NY Slip Op 02932, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: Arrests and prosecutions dismissed on speedy trial grounds and sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50(1) are a nullity and cannot be considered in sentencing.

 

,

THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A DEFENDANT AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER WAS NOT FOLLOWED BY THE JUDGE; SENTENCE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the judge did not follow the procedure for sentencing a defendant as a persistent felony offender:

The Supreme Court erred in failing to comply with the procedural requirements of Penal Law § 70.10(2) when resentencing the defendant as a persistent felony offender. The procedure for determining whether a defendant may be subjected to increased punishment as a persistent felony offender requires a two-pronged analysis (see CPL 400.20[1] …). “Initially, the court must determine whether the defendant is a persistent felony offender as defined in subdivision 1 of section 70.10 of the Penal Law, namely, that he [or she] previously has been convicted of at least two felonies, and secondly, the court must determine if it ‘is of the opinion that the history and character of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of his [or her] criminal conduct are such that extended incarceration and lifetime supervision of the defendant are warranted to best serve the public interest'” … . Before imposing such sentence, “the court is obliged to set forth on the record the reasons it found this second element satisfied” … .

Here, the Supreme Court failed to comply with the second prong of the analysis by failing to set forth, on the record, the reasons why it was “of the opinion that the history and character of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct indicate[d] that extended incarceration and life-time supervision [would] best serve the public interest” (Penal Law § 70.10[2] …). People v Acevedo, 2024 NY Slip Op 02927, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: A judge’s failure to set forth on the record the reasons for sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender will result in vacation of the sentence and remittal.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA; AND DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE DECIDED AGAINST PLEADING GUILTY HAD HE BEEN GIVEN ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE RISK OF DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his guilty plea on the ground his attorney provided erroneous information about the deportation consequences of the plea. In addition to showing defense counsel’s advice was wrong, defendant raised a question of fact whether it was reasonably probable he would not have pled guilty if he had been correctly advised about the risk of deportation:

… [T]rial counsel erroneously advised defendant that he “could . . . be deported” if he were to be “incarcerated for any extensive amount of time,” but, if he were sentenced to “probation,” defendant would not be deported. “These advisements were erroneous, and … defense counsel readily could have ascertained — simply from a reading of the relevant statutes — that defendant’s plea to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree rendered deportation presumptively mandatory and rendered defendant ineligible for cancellation of an order of removal” … . …

… [D]efendant averred in his CPL 440.10 motion that, at the time of his plea, he had resided in the United States for over 20 years and that he “financially supported the mother of his child, as well as her two older children from a prior relationship.” Given his family circumstances and their dependency upon him, defendant averred that, had he received correct advice about pleading guilty to an aggravated felony for purposes of immigration, he “would have rejected the plea offer, proceeded to trial, or sought other alternative plea options.” These allegations “raise a question of fact as to whether it was reasonably probable that he would not have entered a plea of guilty if he had been correctly advised of the deportation consequences of the plea” … . People v Pinales-Harris, 2024 NY Slip Op 02844, Third Dept 5-23-24

Practice Point: If, in the papers supporting a motion to vacate the guilty plea, a defendant shows defense counsel provided erroneous information about the deportation consequences of the guilty plea, and raises a question of fact whether it is reasonably probable he would not have pled guilty had the correct information been provided, he is entitled to a hearing on the motion.

 

, ,

THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO EVALUATE THE CLAIM DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO IMPEACH THE DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY WITH AN INCONSISTENT STATEMENT CONCERNING THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S “PRE-PEOPLE V BOONE” FAILURE TO REQUEST A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CT APP).

he Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s conviction, over a concurring opinion, determined the record was not sufficient to demonstrate defense counsel’s failure to impeach the defective’s testimony with inconsistencies concerning the identification of defendant amounted to ineffective assistance.  And the failure to request the cross-racial identification jury instruction, at a time when the instruction was discretionary (before People v Boone, 30 NY2d 521 (2017)), did not amount to ineffective assistance:

We cannot conclude that counsel’s failure to impeach Detective Morales with his suppression hearing testimony that the victim was unsure if defendant was the gunman establishes ineffective assistance of counsel. “The lack of an adequate record bars review on direct appeal wherever the record falls short of establishing conclusively the merit of the defendant’s claim” … .

… [T]or the reasons set forth in People v Watkins (decided today), the failure to request a cross-racial identification instruction prior to this Court’s decision in People v Boone (30 NY3d 521 [2017]), which made such an instruction mandatory upon request, does not alone amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. People v Lucas, 2024 NY Slip Op 02843, CtApp 5-23-24

Practice Point: The record was insufficient to evaluate the claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to impeach the detective’s testimony with an inconsistent statement concerning the identification of the defendant.

Practice Point: At the time of this pre People v Boone trial a cross-racial identification jury instruction was discretionary. Defense counsel’s failure to request the charge did not amount to ineffective assistance.

 

, ,

A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION IS NOW MANDATORY UPON REQUEST; AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S TRIAL THE CHARGE WAS DISCRETIONARY; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION DID NOT AMOUNT TO CONSTITUTIONAL INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, affirming defendant’s conviction, over a concurring opinion and two dissenting opinions, determined defense counsel’s failure to request a cross-racial identification jury instruction, which is now mandatory upon request (but was not at the time of trial), did not amount to constitutional ineffective assistance of counsel:

Defendant Mark Watkins contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a cross-racial identification instruction at the close of his July 2017 trial. Under our decision in People v Boone—decided after Watkins’ trial—such an instruction is now mandatory upon request “when identification is an issue in a criminal case and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races,” in light of the higher “likelihood of misidentification” and the “significant disparity between what the psychological research shows and what uninstructed jurors believe” regarding the impact of this cross-race effect (30 NY3d 521, 526, 528-529, 535-536 [2017]). At the time of Watkins’ pre-Boone trial, however, a defendant was not entitled to a cross-racial identification instruction upon request; rather, the charge was discretionary. Thus, counsel’s failure to request such a charge did not give rise to a single-error ineffective assistance of counsel claim. * * *

Today, as in Boone, we reiterate the importance of instructing jurors “to examine and evaluate the various factors upon which the accuracy of identification depends,” including the cross-racial nature, if applicable … . We continue to view the cross-racial identification charge as a powerful tool for assisting juries in determining whether there has been a mistaken identification, thereby reducing the risk of wrongful convictions caused by the cross-race effect. Still, Watkins has not shown that, as of July 2017, the failure to request a cross-racial instruction rendered his counsel’s performance constitutionally deficient … . People v Watkins, 2024 NY Slip Op 02842, CtApp 5-21-24

Practice Point: A cross-racial identification jury instruction is now mandatory upon request based upon the Court of Appeals’ 2017 ruling in People v Boone.

Practice Point: At the time of this 2017 trial, the cross-racial jury instruction was discretionary. Here defense counsel’s failure to request the charge did not rise to constitutional ineffective assistance.

Practice Point: It remains an open question whether the failure to request the charge in a post-Boone trial would amount to constitutional ineffective assistance.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S PROVIDING A RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR THE PEOPLE’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR, WHILE THE PROSECUTOR REMAINED SILENT, WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the judge’s providing a race-neutral reason for the People’s peremptory challenge of a juror, while the prosecutor remained silent, was reversible error:

Here, it is undisputed that defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to the prosecution’s exercise of a peremptory challenge against K.S., an African-American female, and that the burden then shifted to the prosecution to provide a race-neutral basis for its peremptory strike. The People failed to do so entirely … . Rather, the court stepped in to provide an explanation, speculating that the prosecution had gotten a “bad vibe” from K.S. regarding whether her prior jury service resulted in an acquittal. The prosecution remained silent. The court nevertheless ruled that the prosecution had “given a legitimate race neutral reason” for the strike.

This serious departure from the Batson framework was an error of the highest order. When the court supplied a race-neutral reason for the peremptory strike, it failed to hold the prosecution to its burden and instead, effectively became an advocate for the prosecution, thus abandoning its Batson-specific duty to “consider the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations in light of all of the relevant facts and circumstances, and in light of the arguments of the parties” … . It is the nonmovant’s expressed explanation for its peremptory challenge—and whether such explanation is mere pretext for a race-based motive—not simply whether a race-neutral reason could theoretically exist—which is the focus of the Batson framework at steps two and three … . The court’s speculation as to the prosecution’s basis for the strike was irrelevant and deprived defendant of any meaningful way to demonstrate pretext in the face of the prosecution’s silence. People v Estwick, 2024 NY Slip Op 02768, CtApp 5-21-24

Practice Point: It is the prosecutor’s actual reason for a peremptory challenge which is required under Batson, not the theoretical existence of a race-neutral reason. Therefore the Batson procedure is violated where, as here, the judge steps in to provide a reason while the prosecutor remains silent.

 

,

THE SEARCH OF A SMALL EARBUD CASE IN DEFENDANT-PAROLEE’S POCKET WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO THE CLAIMED PURPOSE OF THE PAROLE OFFICERS’ PRESENCE IN DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, I.E., A SEARCH FOR A PAROLE ABSONDER; THE HEROIN FOUND IN THE EARBUD CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the search of defendant-parolee’s person by a parole officer was not rationally and reasonably related to the parole officers’ duty. The parole officers claimed they entered defendant’s residence to look for a parole absconder. The search of a small earbud case found inside defendant’s pocket, which turned up heroin, was not reasonably related to the claimed purpose of the parole officers’ presence:

… [T]he People failed to meet their burden to establish that the search of defendant’s pocket was substantially related to the performance of the parole officers’ duties in the particular circumstances presented, i.e., the search of defendant’s residence for a parole absconder. Nor did the People present any evidence at the hearing that circumstances that developed after the parole officers arrived at defendant’s residence rendered the search of his pocket substantially related to the performance of their duties. On this record, the parole officer had no reason to continue the brief pat-down search of the exterior of defendant’s person by searching his pocket and investigating the contents of an earbud case. People v Lively, 2024 NY Slip Op 02767, CtApp 5-21-24

Practice Point: Here the parole officers claimed to be in defendant-parolee’s residence to search for a parole absconder. Therefore the search of a small earbud case found in defendant-parolee’s pocket was not reasonably related to the parole officers’ duties and the drugs found in the case should have been suppressed.

 

,

THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT-PAROLEE’S RESIDENCE WAS “RATIONALLY AND REASONABLY RELATED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PAROLE OFFICER’S DUTY” AND THEREFORE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE WEAPON FOUND IN THE RESIDENCE WAS PROPER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the search of defendant-parolee’s residence after a tip from defendant’s mother about defendant’s possession of a firearm was “rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duty:”

As a condition of his parole, defendant agreed not to “own, possess, or purchase” any firearm without permission from his parole officer. Defendant was given “the most severe” mental health designation from the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, OMH Level 1-S, indicating there were “serious” concerns regarding his mental health. Shortly after defendant’s release to parole, his parole officer received information from his supervisor that defendant’s mother contacted the parole office to inform them that she saw a photograph of defendant with a firearm, and gave the parole officers permission to search the residence that she shared with defendant … . Acting on this information, defendant’s parole officer, with the assistance of other officers, conducted a search of defendant’s home and recovered an AR-15 style rifle and two thirty-round extended magazines with extra gun parts from defendant’s bedroom.

Based on the foregoing, there is record support for the lower courts’ conclusion … that the search of defendant’s residence by defendant’s parole officer was “rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duty” and so defendant’s motion to suppress this evidence was properly denied … . The Aguilar-Spinelli test … for evaluating whether a tip provides police with probable cause for a search or seizure does not apply in these circumstances … . People v Spirito, 2024 NY Slip Op 02766, Fourth Dept 5-21-24

Practice Point: The criteria for a search of a parolee’s residence by a parole officer is not subject to the same constitutional restraints as are searches by the police. Here a tip from defendant’s mother about her son’s possession of a weapon was sufficient to justify the parole-officer search.

 

,

THE POLICE MAY STOP A VEHICLE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE “COMMUNITY CARETAKING” FUNCTION IF THERE IS CAUSE TO BELIEVE SOMEONE IN THE VEHICLE NEEDS ASSISTANCE; THE QUICK OPENING AND CLOSING OF A PASSENGER DOOR WAS NOT ENOUGH (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a two-judge concurrence, recognized that a vehicle may be stopped by the police exercising the “community caretaking” function if the police have cause to believe someone in the vehicle needs assistance. Here defendant’s car was stopped after the passenger door opened and closed quickly. The defendant driver was arrested after admitting he possessed ecstasy. The Court of Appels, after describing the criteria for a “community caretaking” vehicle stop, found that the quick opening and closing of the passenger door was not enough to conclude an occupant needed help:

We conclude that the police may stop an automobile in an exercise of their community caretaking function if two criteria exist. First, the officers must point to specific, objective, and articulable facts that would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that an occupant of the vehicle is in need of assistance. Second, the police intrusion must be narrowly tailored to address the perceived need for assistance. Once assistance has been provided and the peril mitigated, or the perceived need for assistance has been dispelled, any further police action must be justified under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 12 of the State Constitution. People v Brown, 2024 NY Slip Op 02765, CtApp 5-21-24

Practice Point: The police may stop a vehicle if there is cause to believe someone in the vehicle needs assistance. Here the quick opening and closing of a passenger door was not enough to justify the stop.

 

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