You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Defense Counsel’s Assessment of the Merits of Defendant’s Pro Se Motion Rendered Her Position Adverse to Defendant’s

The defendant made a pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.  In response to the sentencing court’s question, the defendant’s attorney told the court that she saw no legal basis for the motion. The Third Department determined defense counsel acted appropriately in not supporting the pro se motion, but the sentencing court should not have questioned defense counsel about the merits of the motion and should have assigned new counsel to the defendant once it was clear counsel’s position was adverse to defendant’s:

Under  established principles, defense counsel has no  duty to support a pro se motion that he or she has determined to be without merit, and failing to support such a motion “does not constitute a position adverse to the client” ….   Here, after properly informing County Court that she would not be making the motion on behalf of defendant, defense counsel responded to the court’s substantive inquiry that she found no  “legal basis” for his motion. Indeed, in denying defendant’s request for new counsel or for more time to make the motion, the court reiterated that defense counsel “in her knowledge and  understanding of this case [stated] that there’s no legal basis to withdraw your plea of guilty.”  “[O]nce counsel took a position adverse to . . . defendant, the court should not have proceeded  to determine the motion  without first assigning. . . defendant new counsel” … . People v McCray, 104161, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

Indictment Count Did Not State an Offense; Jurisdictional Defect Can Not Be Cured by Amendment

The Third Department determined one count of an indictment was jurisdictionally defective and the People’s attempt to cure the defect by amendment was prohibited by CPL 200.70, which does not allow amendment to fix the failure to state or charge an offense:

Here, count 3 of the indictment charged defendant with conspiracy in the second degree, a crime which requires an “intent that conduct constituting a class A  felony be  performed” (Penal Law § 105.15). While count 3 references the relevant statutory section for conspiracy in the second degree and expressly states that defendant acted “with intent that conduct constituting a class A felony be performed,” it does not include any statutory reference to the class A  felony listed in count 1 of the indictment. * * *

While it is true that “[t]he incorporation [in an indictment] by  specific reference to the statute [defining the crime charged] operates without more to constitute allegations of all the elements of the crime required by explicit provision of the statute itself or by judicial gloss overlaid thereon” …, such reference may be negated, as it was here, by the inclusion of conduct that does not constitute the crime charged …. People v Boula, 104053, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

Includable/Excludable Time Under Speedy Trial Statute Explained​

The Third Department explained the principles and proof requirements with respect to excludable time under the speedy trial statute, including a detailed analysis of all the relevant types of excludable/includable time raised by the facts of the case:

Where, as here, a defendant is charged with a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of more than three months of incarceration, the People are required to be ready for trial within 90 days of the commencement of the criminal action (see CPL 30.30 [1] [b];…).   “Whether  the People  complied  with this obligation is ‘determined by computing the time elapsed between the filing of the first accusatory instrument and the People’s declaration of readiness, subtracting any  periods of delay that are excludable under  the terms  of the statute and  then  adding  to the result any postreadiness periods of delay that are actually attributable to the People  and  are ineligible for an  exclusion'”… . People v Sydlar, 103777, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

Failure to Comply with Statutory Procedure Re: Jury Note Was Not “Mode of Proceedings” Error​

The Court of Appeals determined the trial court’s failure to comply precisely with the requirements of CPL 310.30, and the trial court’s having a court officer tell the jury they could not have a written copy of the jury instructions, did not constitute mode of proceedings errors.  The Court wrote:

We are not persuaded by defendant’s argument that a mode of proceedings error occurred, when the trial court did not comply precisely with the requirements of People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270 [1991]; CPL 310.30). Where, as here, defense counsel had notice of a jury note and “failed to object . . . when the error could have been cured,” lack of preservation bars the claim … .

Nor did the court commit a mode of proceedings error by delegating delivery of its answer to a jury question to a court officer. That task was in this context practically ministerial and defense counsel consented to the procedure … . People v Williams, No 112, CtApp, 5-30-13

 

No Error in Using Interpreter Who Was Acquainted With Complainants​

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott (with a dissent by Judge Rivera), the Court of Appeals determined the denial of defense counsel’s request to replace a state-employed court interpreter because he was acquainted with the complainants was not an abuse of discretion:

The interpreter complied with his ethical obligation by notifying the court that he was a friend of complainant husband. Upon receiving that information, the court questioned the interpreter as to whether he (1) knew the facts of the case, and (2) would be uncomfortable translating for complainant wife. Having received a negative answer to both questions, the trial court allowed defense counsel to question the interpreter. Satisfied that its questioning and that of defense counsel uncovered no bias on the part of the interpreter, the court properly exercised its discretion in not removing him.  People v Lee, No 111, CtApp, 5-30-13

 

,

Absent Defendant Did Not Receive Effective Assistance of Counsel​

The Court of Appeals held that a defendant who was absent from his trial received ineffective assistance of counsel:

It is well established that a defendant may not, by his absence alone, “waive his right to effective assistance of counsel” …. Although a defendant’s willful absence from trial surely hampers an attorney’s ability to represent the client adequately and must be taken into consideration, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that counsel’s lack of participation during the jury trial amounted to the ineffective assistance of counsel. On this record, including defendant’s cooperation with his attorney in formulating a defense before absconding, there was a “reasonable basis for an active defense” ….  People v Diggins, No 96, CtApp, 5-30-13

 

,

Failure to Raise Denial of Constitutional Right to Present a Complete Defense Precluded Appeal

The Second Department noted that the defendant’s failure to raise the denial of his constitutional right to present a complete defense and confront witnesses (re: cross-examination of victim about an alleged motive to fabricate) at trial rendered the issue unpreserved for appellate review.  People v Simmons, 2013 NY Slip Op 03861, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

Court Did Not Abuse Discretion In Not Sentencing Pursuant to Jenna’s Law Even Though Defendant Qualified​

The Second Department, over a dissent by Justice Balkin, affirmed a determinate sentence of five years in prison.  The sentencing court chose not to apply Penal Law 60.12 (Jenna’s Law) which allows indeterminate terms of imprisonment for first-time violent felons if the victim’s domestic violence was a factor in the commission of the crime (criteria met by the defendant).  The sentencing court noted that the defendant would probably never commit another crime, but imposed the sentence as a deterrent to others:

While the court accurately noted that the sentence would have limited deterrent and rehabilitative impact on this particular defendant, the court’s aim in imposing the sentence was, in large part, to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct. Indeed, the court stated at sentencing that “[s]ociety certainly must be concerned with self-help, violent behavior that is not sanctioned by law.” Since the court viewed general deterrence as an overriding sentencing principle, we cannot say that the emphasis was erroneous or that the interest of justice calls for a reduction in the defendant’s sentence …. People v Sheehan, 2013 NY Slip Op 03859, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

10-Year Period for Predicate Felony Tolled by Incarceration​

The Second Department noted that incarceration tolls the 10-year period for consideration of a predicate felony:

Although the period of time between the defendant’s 1999 conviction and the commission of the felonies for which he stands convicted in this case was more than 10 years, the 1999 conviction constituted a predicate felony for purposes of second felony offender sentencing, since the 10-year statutory period was tolled while the defendant was incarcerated from May 5, 2000, to February 22, 2007 (see Penal Law §§ 70.06[1][b][iv], [v]; 70.70[3][b][i]). People v McCray, 2013 NY Slip Op 03857, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

,

No Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity—Frisk of Defendant Improper​

Applying a “DeBour” analysis, the Second Department determined the police did not have the right to frisk the defendant.  The police approached the defendant because he was holding two or three cigarettes and the police thought he may be selling loose cigarettes.  The police noticed evidence of gang membership and defendant acknowledged being a member. The police asked defendant if he had a weapon and defendant did not answer.  At that point, based on seeing a bulge in defendant’s pocket, the defendant was frisked and searched. The Court wrote:

The level one request for information may include ” basic, nonthreatening questions regarding, for instance, identity, address or destination'” …. However, ” [o]nce the officer asks more pointed questions that would lead the person approached reasonably to believe that he or she is suspected of some wrongdoing . . . the officer is no longer merely seeking information'” … and the encounter has become a level-two common-law inquiry, which must be supported by ” “a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot”‘” …”[A] police officer who asks a private citizen if he or she is in possession of a weapon must have founded suspicion that criminality is afoot” ….

“[T]o elevate the right of inquiry to the right to forcibly stop and detain, the police must obtain additional information or make additional observations of suspicious conduct sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior” …. ” [I]nnocuous behavior alone will not generate a founded or reasonable suspicion that a crime is at hand'” …. Thus, “in order to justify a frisk of a suspect’s outer clothing, a police officer must have “knowledge of some fact or circumstance that supports a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed or poses a threat to safety”‘”…. Even assuming that the police were justified in conducting a level-two common-law inquiry, they lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to support a level-three encounter consisting of a pat-down or “stop-and-frisk” search… .  People v Kennebrew, 2013 NY Slip Op 03854, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

STREET STOPS

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