You are here: / Criminal Law

Defendant’s 440.46 Motion for Resentencing Should Not Have Been Denied

In finding defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 should have been granted, the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

Although resentencing is not mandatory, there is a statutory presumption in favor of resentencing (see L 2004, ch 738, § 23; CPL 440.46[3]…). Under the circumstances of this case, the factors relied upon by the Supreme Court in denying the motion–the defendant’s criminal history and parole violations–are insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption. The instant offense and many of the defendant’s prior offenses consisted of low-level drug crimes, and none of the defendant’s recent convictions involved violence or weapons …. The defendant had no disciplinary infractions in prison, and had several positive accomplishments … . While the defendant’s parole violations were a relevant consideration …, they were only one factor to consider, and did not mandate denial of the defendant’s motion …. Under all of the circumstances presented here, “the presumption that the defendant is entitled to benefit from the reforms enacted by the Legislature based upon its judgment that the prior sentencing scheme for drug offenses like that committed by the defendant was excessively harsh, has not been rebutted” … . People v Green, 2013 NY Slip Op 06588, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

Imposition of Enhanced Sentence for Defendant’s Tardiness Disallowed

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have imposed an enhanced sentence on the ground defendant was late appearing for his sentencing:

The transcript of the plea proceeding does not indicate that the defendant was given any instructions as to what time he was to appear for sentencing; rather, he was told that he must “com[e] to court on the sentence date.” Under these circumstances, the imposition of an enhanced sentence, without affording the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty, was error… . People v Blades, 2013 NY Slip Op 06584, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

Funeral-Expense Award from NYS Crime Victims Board Should Not Have Been Reduced by 50% Based on the Victim’s Alleged Involvement in Criminal Activity

The Second Department determined that the reimbursement of funeral expenses from the NYS Crime Victims Board should not have been reduced by 50% on the ground that the victim engaged in conduct contributing to the crime.  The court wrote:

… [G]eneral knowledge that narcotics sellers are subject to a greater risk of being violently murdered is not sufficient to supply a record-based relationship between the subject homicide and the victim’s alleged conduct. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the [Office of Victim Services] determination affirming the decision reducing the petitioner’s award by 50% based upon a finding that the victim engaged in culpable conduct “logically and rationally related to the crime by which the victim was victimized” (9 NYCRR 525.3[b]) was “taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts”… . Matter of Cox v Office of Victim Servs, 2013 NY Slip Op 06566, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

Elements of Several Computer Crimes Described

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department affirmed defendant’s convictions for computer trespass, computer tampering, unlawful duplication of computer related material, and criminal possession of computer related material.  Defendant was on disability leave from his employer Time Warner when he used/installed software to gain access to passwords and log-in information.  The First Department took the opportunity to discuss the proof requirements for the elements of these offenses, some of which have little or no appellate authority.  With respect to the “without authorization” and “computer material” elements of computer trespass, the court wrote:

The term “without authorization” is defined as “access of a computer service by a person without permission . . . or after actual notice to such person, that such access was without permission” (Penal Law § 156.00[8]). While there is apparently no appellate authority on this point, the question of how to prove that use of a computer was not authorized was addressed in People v Klapper (28 Misc 3d 225 [Crim Ct, NY County 2010]), which considered a charge of unauthorized use of a computer (Penal Law § 156.05). The Klapper court held that no allegations supported the claim that the defendant’s access was unauthorized, because for access to be without authorization, the defendant must have had knowledge or notice that access was prohibited or “circumvented some security device or measure installed by the user” (28 Misc 3d at 230). Of course, here, evidence fully supports the finding that defendant gained access to Time Warner’s computers when he was unauthorized to do so. There is proof that Time Warner announced in its employee handbook that employees on disability leave were prohibited from entering the building, and the company deactivated those employees’ access cards; this establishes that defendant had actual notice that he lacked authorization to enter the building and to use the company’s computers. * * *

As to whether the information defendant gained access to constituted “computer material” for purposes of Penal Law § 156.10, the statutory definition of the term includes “any computer data or computer program” that “is not and is not intended to be available to anyone other than the person . . . rightfully in possession thereof . . . and which accords or may accord such rightful possessors an advantage over competitors or other persons who do not have knowledge or the benefit thereof” (Penal Law § 156.00[5]). With the use of user log-in information and passwords obtained through his installation of the keystroke-logging program Winvestigator, defendant was able to access information not intended to be available to anyone but the rightful user, namely, Time Warner and its authorized employees. Specifically, he gained access to … confidential information about customers’ accounts, including address, phone number, subscription, service call records, and billing and payment information, as well as a list of any problems customers reported or services they requested. Customer information … is the sort of information that businesses have an interest in protecting and keeping away from competitors …. Accordingly, it qualifies as computer data that is not intended to be available to anyone other than the rightful possessor and that gives (or may give) the rightful possessor an advantage over competitors. People v Puesan, 2013 NY Slip Op 06530, 1st Dept 10-8-13

 

Denial of For Cause Juror Challenge Required Reversal

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial court erroneously denied a “for cause” juror challenge:

The court erred in denying defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated his belief and concern that he recognized defendant from his neighborhood, along with his fear that he would “run into” defendant or his friends. After being apprised of defendant’s address, the panelist expressed an increased concern, resulting from the fact that he lived near that address. The panelist also expressed a “feeling of defendant’s guilt,” because he believed the neighborhood was “infected with drugs and drug dealers,” After further inquiry regarding whether the panelist could follow the law and remain impartial, he ultimately stated, “I’ll try. . . . I can’t promise you anything. . . .” Viewing his statements in context and as a whole, they did not amount to an unequivocal assurance of impartiality… .  People v Tavarez, 2013 NY Slip Op 06515, 1st Dept 10-8-13

 

,

No Element of Intent in Constructive Possession of Contraband

The First Department determined there was no “intent” element to the constructive possession of contraband.  The marijuana and stun gun at issue were in an apartment defendant shared with his aunt and nephew. The defendant argued that, even if he was fully aware the items were in the apartment, the People were required to prove that he intended to exercise dominion and control over them.  The court wrote:

In defendant’s view, even if he was fully aware that there was contraband in the apartment he shared with his aunt and nephew, and even if he had unfettered control over the areas where the contraband was located, he was not guilty of possessing it since he merely tolerated his drug-dealing nephew’s use of the apartment as a repository for the contraband and had nothing else to do with it. We disagree.

There is no element of intent in constructive possession. A long line of authority makes clear that knowing constructive possession of tangible property is established where the People prove knowledge that the property is present and “a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband [was] found” … People v Rodriguez, 2013 NY Slip Op 06495, 1st Dept 10-8-13

 

,

Indictment Should Not Have Been Dismissed Based on Prosecutorial Misconduct

In determining the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment based upon the prosecutorial misconduct, the Fourth Department explained:

“ ‘[D]ismissal of an indictment under CPL 210.35 (5) must meet a high test and is limited to instances of prosecutorial misconduct, fraudulent conduct or errors which potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the [g]rand [j]ury’ ” … .  As the Court of Appeals has stated, “not every improper comment, elicitation of inadmissible testimony, impermissible question or mere mistake renders an indictment defective.  Typically, the submission of some inadmissible evidence will be deemed fatal only when the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain the indictment” … .

Here, the prosecutor was required to establish that the four-year-old victim could provide unsworn testimony, but failed to do so… . The prosecutor also violated the unsworn witness rule during an attempt to persuade the child to testify about the incident … .  Nevertheless, we conclude that the prosecutor did not thereby engage in conduct that was fraudulent in nature, nor was the prosecutor’s conduct so egregious as to impair the integrity of the grand jury proceedings … .  We further conclude that the remaining evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the indictment.  People v Elioff, 1002, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

,

Suppression Motion Should Have Been Granted—Defendant Arrested Before Police Had Probable Cause

The Fourth Department reversed the suppression court and granted defendant’s motion to suppress and dismissed the indictment. The Fourth Department concluded that the evidence of which the police were aware at the time defendant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police care did not amount to probable cause.  A baggie containing drugs and a dagger were not found until after the illegal arrest:

…[T]he police were justified in approaching the vehicle outside the bar because they had a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” rendering the police encounter lawful at its inception … . We further conclude that the police were justified in pursuing the vehicle inasmuch as “defendant’s flight in response to an approach by the police, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that [he] may be engaged in criminal activity, [gave] rise to reasonable suspicion, the necessary predicate for police pursuit” … .  Such reasonable suspicion also gave the police the authority to stop the vehicle … .

…[W]e conclude that an arrest occurred here when defendant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car.  Under such circumstances, “a reasonable man innocent of any crime, would have thought” that he was under arrest … .  “[V]arious factors, when combined with the street exchange of a ‘telltale sign’ of narcotics, may give rise to probable cause that a narcotics offense has occurred.  Those factors relevant to assessing probable cause include the exchange of currency; whether the particular community has a high incidence of drug trafficking; the police officer’s experience and training in drug investigations; and any ‘additional evidence of furtive or evasive behavior on the part of the participants’ ” … .  Here, the police observed neither a “ ‘telltale sign’ ” of narcotics, such as a glassine baggie, nor the exchange of currency … .  Thus, despite the observations of the police outside the bar, their experience in drug investigations, and defendant’s flight, we conclude that the police did not have probable cause to arrest defendant before the dagger and first baggie were observed. People v Lee, 1005, 4th Dept 10-4-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION

,

Case Sent Back to Suppression Court for Hearing to Determine Admissibility of Statements

The Fourth Department sent the case back to the suppression court for a hearing to determine the admissibility of statements that had not been included in the initial 710.30 notice provided in connection with a prior indictment that had been dismissed. The statements were included in the 710.30 notice provided in connection with the superseding indictment. The Fourth Department determined the defendant was entitled to a hearing on the admissibility of the statements:

…[W]e conclude that the court properly refused to preclude the additional statements included in the CPL 710.30 notice served by the People after the superseding indictment was filed … .  “Those [statements] were not referenced in the CPL 710.30 notice that was served in connection with the original indictment, but the record establishes that the People filed the superseding indictment out of necessity after the court dismissed . . . the original indictment” … .  We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in determining the admissibility of the additional statements without reopening the Huntley hearing and affording defendant a further opportunity to contest their admissibility.  The court concluded that the statements were spontaneously made and therefore not subject to suppression.  At the time of the Huntley hearing conducted in conjunction with the initial indictment, however, the only issue before the court with respect to the additional statements was whether they should be precluded on the ground that they had not been included in the first CPL 710.30 notice.  Consequently, inasmuch as the voluntariness of the additional statements was not at issue at that time, defendant had no reason or opportunity to explore the issues of spontaneity or the effect of the previously-given Miranda warnings, or to raise any other issues regarding the admissibility of those statements.  Thus, “the hearing must be reopened” to afford him that opportunity… . People v Roberts, 945, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

Restitution to Police Department Re: Expenses of Drug Bust Proper

The Fourth Department determined defendant was properly ordered to pay restitution to the police department in a drug case, but that payment of a surcharge should not have been ordered:

… [A] defendant convicted of, inter alia, a class C “ ‘felony involving the sale of a controlled substance’ may be ordered to repay a law enforcement agency ‘the amount of funds expended in the actual purchase’ of a controlled substance” … .  Section 60.27 (9) was amended in 1991 “to authorize restitution to law enforcement agencies for unrecovered funds utilized to purchase narcotics as part of investigations leading to convictions” … .  We therefore conclude … that the court properly directed defendant to pay restitution to the City of Oswego Police Department for the funds it expended in buying drugs from him.

The People correctly concede with respect to defendant’s further contention … that the court erred in imposing a surcharge on that restitution order.  Penal Law § 60.27 (9) further provides that “[a]ny restitution which may be required to be made to a law enforcement agency pursuant to this section . . . shall not include a designated surcharge.”  People v Boatman, 940, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

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