You are here: / Criminal Law

Independent Reason for Incarceration Precludes Habeas Corpus Relief

In affirming the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition, the Third Department noted that even where the basis for the petition is valid (here there was no preliminary hearing for a parole violation) habeas relief is not available if there is an independent basis for continued incarceration (here an indictment for the offense underlying the parole violation):

Regardless of the merits of petitioner’s claim that he was deprived of a preliminary hearing, an independent basis for his parole revocation exists given his conviction upon the count charged in the indictment (see Executive Law § 259-i [3] [d] [iii]…). Petitioner is thus not entitled to immediate release, rendering habeas corpus relief unavailable … .  People ex rel Wiggins v Schiff, 515008, Third Dept 4-25-13

 

, ,

Restitution Can Not Be Ordered When Not Addressed in Plea Agreement

The Second Department, in the interest of justice, determined the sentencing court should not have imposed restitution because restitution was not addressed in the plea agreement.  The matter was remitted for re-sentencing without restitution. People v Thompson, 2013 NY Slip Op 02770, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

,

Failure to Follow Statutory Procedure Re: Notes Sent Out By Jury Is a “Mode of Proceedings” Error Requiring Reversal

In reversing a conviction because the trial court committed a “mode of proceedings” error (not requiring preservation) by not following the procedure mandated in Criminal Procedure Law 310.30 (re: notes sent out by the jury during deliberations), the Second Department explained:

“Specifically, the Court of Appeals has held that whenever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge,’ it should be read into the record in the presence of counsel,’ and that, [a]fter the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses'” … . These requirements were not satisfied here.People v Fenton, 2013 NY Slip Op 02761, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

, ,

Conviction Reversed Because of Improper Cross-Examination by Prosecutor; Defendant Questioned About Boyfriend’s Criminal History and Her Employment History

The First Department reversed a conviction because of the prosecutor’s improper cross-examination of the defendant.  The defendant was accused of smuggling a knife to her boyfriend while he was incarcerated.  The defendant was cross-examined about her boyfriend’s gang membership and criminal history and defendant’s periods of unemployment (among other improper topics).  In addressing the cross-examination about defendant’s boyfriend’s criminal history, the First Department wrote:

The criminal history of defendant’s boyfriend was irrelevant to whether defendant “knowingly and unlawfully introduce[d] any dangerous contraband into a detention facility” … . The fact that Wright was a gang member with an extensive criminal history has no bearing on whether or not defendant knew she was introducing dangerous contraband into the facility, and could only serve to inflame the jury and prejudice defendant. As defendant correctly argues, this evidence served “no purpose but to suggest that defendant was associated with a disreputable person” … .People v Bartholomew, 2013 NY Slip Op 02699, 1st Dept, 4-23-13

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

Sentences for Underlying Felony and Bail Jumping Must Be Consecutive Absent Mitigating Factors that Bear Directly on the Manner the Crime Was Committed

In finding the sentencing court used the wrong “mitigating” factors to determine whether the sentence for bail jumping could run concurrently with the sentence for the underlying felony, the Third Department wrote:

Penal Law § 70.25 (2-c) restricts a court’s sentencing discretion when a person who is convicted of bail jumping in the second  degree  also is convicted of the underlying felony in connection with which he or she had been released on bail. Specifically, if indeterminate sentences are imposed upon both the bail jumping charge and the underlying felony, the bail jumping sentence must run consecutively to the other sentence unless the court “finds mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed” (Penal Law § 70.25 [2-c]…).  Here, County Court sought to justify concurrent sentences based upon “the severe penalties, fines, restrictions and state prison sentence [defendant was] earning by [his] antisocial behavior of drinking and driving and failing to come to court, and because [he had pleaded] guilty . . . and waived appeal in another county.” However, these factors have no bearing upon the manner in which the crime was committed … and, therefore, do not support imposing concurrent sentences in this case.  People v Harrison, 105176, 3rd Dept 4-18-22

 

, ,

Inmate Should Not Have Been Required to Document His Native American Ancestry In Order to Practice His Religion

In annulling a determination by the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) that the petitioner (an inmate) must document his Native American ancestry before he will be allowed to practice his religion, the Third Department wrote:

It has been recognized that correction officials may impose restrictions on the religious practices of inmates provided that such restrictions are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests … .Respondents candidly concede, and we agree, that CORC failed to articulate or otherwise identify any legitimate penological interest reasonably served by the documentation requirement. Consequently, we conclude that the determinations at issue are arbitrary, capricious and  without a rational basis… .  Matter of Santiago, 514317, 3rd Dept, 4-18-13

 

 

 

, , , ,

Breath Test Results Suppressed Because Defendant Not Informed Her Attorney Had Appeared in the Case Prior to the Test

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department affirmed the suppression of a chemical breath-test because the police did not inform the defendant her attorney had appeared in the case before the test was administered.  As Justice Leventhal described the “right to counsel” issue and holding:

This case calls upon us to address a matter of first impression involving the right to counsel under the New York Constitution (see NY Const, art I, § 6), where the defendant consented to a chemical breath test to determine her blood alcohol content (hereinafter BAC), but, prior to the commencement of the test, the police made no effort to inform the defendant that her attorney had appeared in the matter. … [W]e hold that where, as here, the police are aware that an attorney has appeared in a case before the chemical breath test begins, they must make reasonable efforts to inform the motorist of counsel’s appearance if such notification will not substantially interfere with the timely administration of the test. Since the People failed to establish that notifying the defendant of her attorney’s appearance would, in fact, have interfered with the timely administration of the chemical breath test, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of her omnibus motion which was to suppress the results of that test. People v Washington, 2013 NY Slip Op 02600, 2011-07259, Ind No 2510/10, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

SUPPRESS

,

Motion for SORA Downward Departure Requires Hearing​

The Second Department reversed the motion court because a motion for a downward departure (SORA) pursuant to Correction Law 168-o(2) requires a hearing:

By notice of motion dated September 21, 2010, the defendant moved pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(2) for a downward modification of his risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law article 6-C). The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion without holding a hearing. Because the requisite procedures set forth in Correction Law § 168-o were not followed, we reverse.  As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court failed to conduct a hearing on the defendant’s motion, as it was required to do pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(4) …. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and, thereafter, a new determination of the defendant’s motion. People v Runko, 2013 NY Slip Op 02555, 2012-07328, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

,

Court’s Explanation of Lien Law Presumption (Where Money Held In Trust by Contractor and Allegedly Misused Can Be Deemed Larceny) Was Determined to Impermissibly Switch the Burden of Proof to the Defendant​

In reversing a larceny conviction, the Second Department explained that allowing the jury to consider the Lien Law presumption (where use of funds held in trust for purposes other than those of the trust can constitute larceny) as mandatory, rather than permissive, shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:

Pursuant to Lien Law article 3-A, a contractor who receives funds under a contract for the improvement of real property must hold the funds as a trustee, and if the contractor applies trust funds for any purpose other than the purposes of the trust and fails to pay a trust claim within 31 days of the time it is due, he or she may be guilty of larceny (see Lien Law §§ 70, 71, 79-a[1][b]…). The trial court instructed the jury, in accordance with Lien Law § 79-a(3), that “[f]ailure of the trustee to keep books and records required by this section shall be presumptive evidence that the trustee has applied . . . trust funds . . . for purposes other than a purpose of the trust.” Like all statutory presumptions in New York, the presumption in Lien Law § 79-a(3) is permissive … . The trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that the presumption “was permissive, or to emphasize that, despite the presumption, the same burden of proof remained with the People, was bound to result in misleading the . . . jurors into believing that the presumption is conclusive and binding upon them'” …. Such a mandatory presumption is unconstitutional, as it relieves the People of their burden of proving every element of the crime and undermines the jury’s ” responsibility at trial, based on evidence adduced by the [People], to find the ultimate facts beyond a reasonable doubt'” .. . People v Cioffi, 2013 NY Slip Op 02588, 2012-00966, 2013-03689, Ind No 11-00174, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

Trial Court’s Batson Ruling Re: Pretextual Reasons for Exclusion of White Jurors Upheld

In upholding the trial court’s ruling that the proffered reasons for the exclusion of certain white jurors were pretextual, the Second Department wrote:

In Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79, 94-98), the United States Supreme Court formulated a three-step test to assess whether peremptory challenges have been used to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race, gender, or other protected categories …. In step one, the moving party must make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by “showing that the facts and circumstances of the voir dire raise an inference that the other party excused one or more jurors for an impermissible reason” … . If the moving party makes a prima facie showing, the inquiry proceeds to step two, and the burden shifts to the adversary to provide a facially neutral explanation for the challenge. If the nonmoving party “offers facially neutral reasons supporting the challenge, the inference of discrimination is overcome” … . Once facially neutral reasons are provided, the inquiry proceeds to step three, and the burden shifts back to the moving party to prove purposeful discrimination, and ” the trial court must determine whether the proffered reasons are pretextual'” …, including whether the reasons apply to the facts of the case, and whether the reasons were applied to only a particular class of jurors and not to others … . Here, the trial court’s determination that the proffered reasons for challenging certain white jurors were pretextual is entitled to great deference on appeal and is supported by the record… . People v Carrington, 2013 NY Slip Op 02587, 2006-09951, Ind No 369/05, 2nd Dept 4-17-13

 

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