You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Court’s Failure to Inform Defendant that Guilty Plea May Result in Deportation Violates Due Process/Vacation of Plea in Absence of Notification Not Automatic

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam (with concurring and dissenting opinions), the Court of Appeals determined that all non-citizen defendants who plead guilty to a felony are entitled, under the Due Process clause, to notification that the plea may result in deportation, but that a failure to so notify does not automatically require vacation of the plea:

We … hold that due process compels a trial court to apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony.   In reaching this conclusion, we overrule the limited portion of our decision in People v Ford (86 NY2d 397 [1995]) which held that a court’s failure to advise a defendant of potential deportation never affects the validity of the defendant’s plea.

[We] further hold that, in light of the Court’s conclusion that a trial court must notify a pleading non-citizen defendant of the possibility of deportation, the trial court’s failure to provide such advice does not entitle the defendant to automatic withdrawal or vacatur of the plea.  Rather, to overturn his or her conviction, the defendant must establish the existence of a reasonable probability that, had the court warned the defendant of the possibility of deportation, he or she would have rejected the plea and opted to go to trial… .  People v Peque, et seq, 163, 164, 165, CtApp 11-19-13

 

,

“Depraved Indifference” Standard Not Met/HIV Positive Defendant Did Not Disclose Status to Victim

The Fourth Department determined the evidence before the grand jury did not demonstrate defendant had acted with “depraved indifference to human life” (Reckless Endangerment, First Degree). The defendant, who was HIV positive, had unprotected sex with the victim without disclosing his HIV status:

…[W]e conclude that the evidence before the grand jury, viewed in the light most favorable to the People …, was legally insufficient to support a finding that defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life (see Penal Law § 120.25…).  Specifically, the evidence established that defendant engaged in unprotected sex with the victim on two to four occasions without disclosing his HIV positive status.

Shortly after their sexual relationship ended, defendant told the victim that a former sexual partner had tested positive for HIV and urged the victim to be tested.  The victim was diagnosed as HIV positive several months later.  We conclude that, although defendant may have acted with indifference to the victim’s health, his conduct lacked the “ ‘wanton cruelty, brutality, or callousness’ ” required for a finding of depraved indifference toward a single victim … .  Defendant told the police that he did not disclose his HIV positive status to the victim because he was “afraid [the victim] would not want to be with” him, and that he “loved [the victim] so very much.”  Defendant wrote a letter apologizing to the victim because he was “so upset” and “felt terrible.”  The fact that defendant encouraged the victim to be tested for HIV indicates that defendant “was trying, however weakly and ineffectively,” to prevent any grave risk that might result from his conduct … .  We thus conclude that, “while the evidence certainly shows that defendant cared much too little about [the victim]’s safety, it cannot support a finding that [he] did not care at all” … .

We further conclude that the grand jury evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People …., also did not establish that defendant’s conduct presented a grave risk of death to the victim (see Penal Law § 120.25…).  The victim’s physician, an infectious disease expert, testified that the ability to treat HIV has increased dramatically over the past 15 years, with over 20 different antiviral medications available for treatment.  The expert testified that although an HIV positive diagnosis may have been tantamount to a death sentence in the past, with treatment, the prognosis today is “outstanding,” particularly when a patient promptly learns that he or she is infected and seeks treatment.  Indeed, the expert testified that patients with HIV who take their medication, eat well, do not smoke, and reduce their alcohol intake can live a “very healthy, normal lifestyle,” and he expected a similar prognosis for the victim.  We thus conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the People failed to establish that defendant’s reckless conduct posed a grave or “very substantial” risk of death to the victim… .  People v Williams, 1196, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

Failure to Disclose Witness Was a Paid Informant Required Vacation of Conviction

The Fourth Department reversed County Court, finding that defendant’s CPL 440 motion seeking vacation of the conviction should have been granted.  The People failed to disclose that a prosecution witness was a paid informant:

We note at the outset that the following quote from People v Fuentes (12 NY3d 259, 263, rearg denied 13 NY3d 766) is instructive: “[t]he Due Process Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions both guarantee a criminal defendant the right to discover favorable evidence in the People’s possession material to guilt or punishment .. . [, and i]mpeachment evidence falls within the ambit of a prosecutor’s Brady obligation . . . 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 a document, the materiality element is established provided there exists a ‘reasonable possibility’ that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” … .

Here, there is no dispute that defendant satisfied the first element of the Fuentes test inasmuch as the People do not dispute that the prosecution witness at issue was a paid informant and do not contend that evidence of the status of that witness is not favorable to defendant.  … “[T]he mandate of Brady extends beyond any particular prosecutor’s actual knowledge” …, and “ ‘the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police’ ” … .

We further conclude that the court should have granted defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion insofar as it sought vacatur of the judgment of conviction on the basis of the Brady issue.  Here, defendant made a specific request for Brady material including agreements between the People and their witnesses, disclosure of whether any information was provided by an informant, and the substance of that informant’s information.  We conclude that “there exists a ‘reasonable possibility’ that [such material] would have changed the result of the proceedings”… .  People v Gayden…, 1095, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

Youthful-Offender Sentence In Excess of Four Years (After Probation Violation) Illegal

The Fourth Department wrote:

Defendant … appeals from an adjudication that revoked his probation and sentenced him to three terms of incarceration of 1… to 4 years, two of which were ordered to run consecutively to each other.  Defendant’s sentence thus aggregates to a term of incarceration of 2… to 8 years, and we agree with defendant that the sentence is illegal.  “[H]aving adjudicated defendant a youthful offender, [Supreme C]ourt was without authority to impose consecutive sentences in excess of four years.” We therefore modify the adjudication by directing that all of the sentences shall run concurrently with respect to each other… . People v Tajenee J, 1175, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

,

Harmless Error Rule Should Not Have Been Applied to Guilty Plea

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals, over a dissent, declined to apply the harmless error rule to a guilty plea.  In this driving-while-intoxicated case, the defendant moved to suppress an open bottle of rum and a crack pipe which were found in the car he was driving during an inventory search. The motion was denied. Defendant told the court he wanted to plead guilty because he “was not planning to go to trial if [he] got a negative ruling” on the motion.  On appeal, the inventory search was deemed invalid, but the Appellate Division ruled the error “harmless.”  In reversing, the Court of Appeals wrote:

The harmless error rule was “formulated to review trial verdicts” (People v Grant, 45 NY2d at 378).  It requires an appellate court to assess the quantum and nature of the People’s proof of guilt independent of erroneously admitted evidence and the causal effect, if any, that the introduction of that evidence had on the fact finder’s verdict … .  Harmless error therefore can be “difficult to apply to guilty pleas” — especially in cases involving “an improper denial of a pretrial motion to suppress” — since “a defendant’s decision to plead guilty may be based on any factor inside or outside the record” (People v Grant, 45 NY2d at 378379).  Consequently, convictions premised on invalid guilty pleas generally are not amenable to harmless error review (see id.).

The Grant doctrine is not absolute, however, and we have recognized that a guilty plea entered after an improper court ruling may be upheld if there is no “reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the plea” (id. at 379).  Although a failure to suppress evidence may detrimentally influence a defendant’s plea negotiations, a concession of guilt may be treated as valid if the defendant articulates a reason for it that is independent of the incorrect pre-plea court ruling (see id. at 379-380) or an appellate court is satisfied that the decision to accept responsibility “was not influenced” by the error… . * * *

Certainly, there may be instances where the failure to grant suppression does not affect a defendant’s decision to plead guilty because the challenged proof is cumulative or too trivial.  In this case, however, the denial of the motion to suppress could not be viewed as harmless and the guilty plea must be vacated. People v Wells, 188, CtApp 11-14-13

 

In Deciding the Sequence of Convictions, the Original Sentence Date Controls, Not the Date of Resentencing to Cure a Post-Release-Supervision Flaw

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals determined that, with respect to New York’s sentence enhancement statutes, “the controlling date of sentence for the defendant’s prior conviction is the original date of sentence for that conviction… [not] the date of a later resentencing which rectifies the flawed imposition of post-release supervision (PRS) in accordance with … People v Sparber (10 NY3d 457 [2008]). … Therefore, at sentencing for a more recent crime, the defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as a predicate felony conviction if the original date of sentence precedes the commission of the present offense.”  People v Boyer…, 205, 206, CtApp 11-14-13

 

, ,

Test for Sufficiency of Evidence of Accessorial Liability Is Same As Test for Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence

The Second Department upheld Family Court’s juvenile delinquency finding and explained the burden of proof.  The appellant argued on appeal that, although he was present at the robbery, there was insufficient proof he participated in it:

“The evidence supporting a fact-finding in a juvenile delinquency proceeding is legally sufficient if, viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, any rational trier of fact could have found the appellant’s commission of all the elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt” … . The test is no different when the evidence supporting the fact-finding is circumstantial … . Although “[a] person’s mere presence at the scene of the crime, even with knowledge of its perpetration, cannot render him or her accessorially liable for the underlying criminal conduct” …, the complainant’s testimony in this case, when viewed in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, established the appellant’s active participation in the incident. Accordingly, the evidence was legally sufficient … . Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence …, we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor … . Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 342.2[2]…).  Matter of Chakelton M, 2013 NY Slip Op 07484, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

Prosecutor’s Circumvention of the Bruton Rule Required Reversal

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because of the misconduct of the prosecutor.  In spite of the pre-trial ruling redacting the confession of the co-defendant pursuant to the Bruton rule (prohibiting the use of a non-testifying codefendant’s confession), the prosecutor repeatedly indicated to the jury that the codefendant had implicated the defendant:

…[D]uring opening statements, the prosecutor told the jury that, after the nontestifying codefendant was arrested, the police learned of the involvement in the crime of someone called “Live,” i.e., the defendant. Thus, the prosecutor improperly implied that the codefendant implicated the defendant in the crime … . In denying the defendant’s mistrial motion based on this conduct, the court nonetheless admonished the prosecutor, … telling him that the court was “not happy with the remarks.”

Despite this admonishment, in summation, the prosecutor again implied that the codefendant had implicated the defendant. Specifically, he unequivocally suggested that the unnamed accomplice referred to in the “question and answer” portion of the statement, whom the codefendant stated had a 9 millimeter gun, was the defendant. Further, the prosecutor projected for the jury, on a video screen, a copy of the codefendant’s statement, with the word “we” highlighted in red, and directly suggested that the jury should draw the inference that “we” in the codefendant’s statement referred to the codefendant and the defendant. Under the circumstances of this case, this conduct constituted “an unjustifiable circumvention” of the Bruton rule …, and deliberate defiance of the pretrial order. People v Singleton, 2013 NY Slip Op 07509, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

,

Newly Discovered Evidence Required Vacation of Murder Conviction

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s vacation of a murder conviction (pursuant to a CPL 440.10 motion) based upon newly discovered evidence.  At a hearing, the defendant presented evidence calling into question the testimony of two witnesses who had claimed to have seen the shooting:

CPL 440.10(1)(g) provides that a court may vacate a judgment of conviction upon the ground that: “New evidence has been discovered since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial, which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant; provided that a motion based upon such ground must be made with due diligence after the discovery of such alleged new evidence.” The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence every fact essential to support the motion (see CPL 440.30[6]…). The power to vacate a judgment of conviction on the ground of newly discovered evidence rests within the discretion of the hearing court … . The court must make its final decision based upon the likely cumulative effect of the new evidence had it been presented at trial … .

Contrary to the People’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant satisfied his burden of proof and that the likely cumulative effect of the newly discovered evidence, including the evidence of the broad conspiracy to pay the eyewitnesses to implicate the defendant as the shooter, would have been a verdict more favorable to the defendant … . People v Singh, 2013 NY Slip Op 07508, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

, , ,

Valid Waiver of Appeal Does Not Preclude Review of Whether Ineffective Assistance Affected Voluntariness of Plea

The Second Department noted that a valid waiver of appeal precludes review of the factual sufficiency of a plea allocution, but does not preclude review of a claim of ineffective assistance where the voluntariness of the plea may have been affected:

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution … . While the valid waiver of his right to appeal would typically preclude review of the defendant’s claim that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel, here, the defendant claims that the alleged ineffective assistance may have affected the voluntariness of his plea, and, as such, his claim is reviewable … . Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant’s contention, his attorney provided him with meaningful representation … . Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea … . People v Milton, 2013 NY Slip Op 07507, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

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