You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

WHEN DEFENDANT MADE STATEMENTS AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA WHICH RAISED A POSSIBLE INTOXICATION DEFENSE THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER; THE ISSUE NEEDN’T BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the defendant’s statement at the time of the plea raised questions the judge should have explored. A narrow exception to the preservation requirement applies here:

The narrow exception to the preservation requirement applies in this “rare case” where defendant made statements that cast doubt upon his guilt and the court failed to satisfy its duty of inquiring further to ensure that defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary … . Although defendant’s statements at sentencing raised a possible intoxication defense, the court did not make any inquiry regarding the statements or the applicability of the defense. The court’s failure to ensure that defendant understood the defense and was waiving his right to pursue it at trial requires vacatur of the plea … . People v Dozier, 2024 NY Slip Op 02602, First Dept 5-9-24

Practice Point: If a defendant makes statements at the time of a plea which indicates a possible defense, the judge must make inquiries sufficient to ensure the plea is voluntary and intelligent.

Practice Point: When a defendant makes statements at the time of the plea which indicate a possible defense and the judge fails to make sufficient inquiries, the issue is appealable in the absence of preservation.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, GUILTY PLEA VACATED; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT DISCUSSED UNTIL AFTER THE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and finding the waiver of appeal invalid, held that the judge’s failure to inform defendant of the period of postrelease supervision rendered the guilty plea involuntary. In addition, the judge did not discuss the waiver of appeal until after the guilty plea:

… County Court did not specify the period of postrelease supervision to be imposed and did not explain that a term of postrelease supervision would be imposed even if the defendant successfully completed a substance abuse diversion program. … [T]he court’s failure to so advise the defendant prevented his plea from being knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . …

… County Court did not discuss the appeal waiver until after the defendant had already admitted his guilt … , and the court failed to ascertain whether the defendant “understood the nature of the appellate rights being waived” and the consequences of waiving those rights … . People v Reyes, 2024 NY Slip Op 02547, Second Dept  5-8-24

Practice Point: Failure to inform defendant of the period of postrelease supervision renders the guilty plea involuntary.

Practice Point: Failure to discuss the waiver of appeal until after the defendant pleads guilty renders the waiver invalid.

 

, , ,

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT A FINE IS PART OF THE SENTENCE RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the failure to inform defendant that a fine was part of the sentence rendered the plea involuntary:

“[I]n order for a plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, a defendant must be advised of the direct consequences of that plea” … . “The direct consequences of a plea—those whose omission from a plea colloquy makes the plea per se invalid—are essentially the core components of a defendant’s sentence: a term of probation or imprisonment, a term of postrelease supervision, a fine” … , and the failure to advise a defendant at the time of the guilty plea of a direct consequence of that plea “requires that [the] plea be vacated” … . Here, the court failed to advise defendant that the sentence imposed on a person convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree must include a fine in an amount between $500 and $5,000 (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [b] [i]). People v Carmichael, 2024 NY Slip Op 02427, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: A judge’s failure to inform the defendant that a fine is part of the sentence renders the guilty plea involuntary.

 

THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER CAN BE APPLIED TO DISMISS A KIDNAPPING CHARGE EVEN IF THE LESSER OFFENSE IS NOT CHARGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department remitted the matter for consideration of the People’s remaining objection to applying the merger doctrine to the kidnapping charge. County Court had erroneously ruled the merger doctrine could not be applied to dismiss the kidnapping charge unless the lesser offense is also charged:

… [D]efendant contends that the court erred in denying that part of his omnibus motion seeking to dismiss the charge of kidnapping in the second degree pursuant to the merger doctrine. The kidnapping merger doctrine is a judicially-created doctrine intended to prevent overcharging and “to prohibit a conviction for kidnapping based on acts which are so much the part of another substantive crime that the substantive crime could not have been committed without such acts and independent criminal responsibility for kidnapping may not fairly be attributed to the accused” … . A kidnapping charge “is generally deemed to merge with another offense only where there is minimal asportation immediately preceding the other crime or where the restraint and underlying crime are essentially simultaneous” … . Even if that is so, however, there is no merger where “the manner of detention is egregious” … . We agree with defendant that the court erred in concluding that the merger doctrine did not apply because defendant was charged only with kidnapping and, therefore, there was no other crime with which the count could merge.

… [D]efendant correctly contends that he had committed acts that would have supported a conviction for menacing and, therefore, the merger doctrine was applicable whether he was charged with the lesser offense or not … . * * *

Inasmuch as the court did not rule on the People’s alternative argument—i.e., that the merger doctrine did not apply because any alleged menacing of the victim was incidental to the kidnapping—we may not affirm the decision on that ground … . We therefore … reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a ruling on the motion in accordance with this memorandum … . People v Almonte, 2024 NY Slip Op 02426, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: The doctrine of merger can be applied to dismiss a kidnapping charge even if the lesser offense is not charged.

 

THE MARIJUANA FELONY CONVICTION WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS WAS BASED ON A STATUTE WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN REPEALED AND REPLACED WITH A MISDEMEANOR; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING AS A FIRST-TIME FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Bannister, determined defendant, who had been sentenced as a second felony offender, was entitled to resentencing as a first-time felony offender because his 2013 marijuana-felony conviction was based upon a statute which had been repealed and replaced by a misdemeanor:

MRTA [Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act] provides a procedural mechanism for a person, such as defendant, who has completed serving a sentence for a conviction under Penal Law former article 221 to petition the court of conviction for vacatur of that conviction where … the person would have been guilty of a lesser or potentially less onerous offense under [the new]  article 222 than under former article 221 … . … Defendant successfully moved to vacate his January 2013 felony conviction, and Supreme Court … replaced that conviction with a conviction under Penal Law § 222.30.

… [D]efendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate the sentence imposed for his 2019 conviction. He contended that the vacatur of his prior felony marihuana conviction invalidated the enhanced sentence imposed for his 2019 conviction, which was based on the prior felony conviction. … Supreme Court … granted defendant’s motion to set aside the sentence for his 2019 conviction and resentenced him as a first felony offender to 3½ years in prison and 3½ years of postrelease supervision. * * *

… [W]e conclude that one of the “purposes” … served in substituting the misdemeanor for the felony conviction is to allow for the retroactive amelioration of a predicate felony sentence. People v Parker, 2024 NY Slip Op 02414, Fourth Deptp 5-3-24

Practice Point: Here defendant’s second felony offender status was based on a marijuana statute which has since been repealed and replaced with a misdemeanor. Defendant was entitled to resentencing as a first-time felony offender.

 

HERE THE PEOPLE REQUESTED AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE HUNTLEY HEARING BUT THE RECORD IS SILENT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE REQUESTED ADJOURNMENT; THEREFORE THE ENTIRE TIME BETWEEN THE REQUEST AND THE HEARING WAS COUNTED AGAINST THE PEOPLE FOR “SPEEDY TRIAL” PURPOSES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, granting the speedy trial motion and dismissing the indictment, determined that the record did not indicate the length of an adjournment of the Huntley hearing requested by the People and, therefore, the entire time between the request and the hearing was chargeable to the People:

“Normally, the People will be charged only with the actual period of adjournment requested, following their initial statement of readiness; any additional period of delay, for the convenience of the court’s calendar, will be excludable” … . The People, however, “bear the burden of ensuring that the record explains the cause of adjournments sufficiently for the court to determine which party should properly be charged with any delay” … . Here, there is no explanation as to the reason for the requested adjournment in the record, and there is no indication on the record of the length of the adjournment the People were requesting. Thus, the entire period is chargeable to the People … . Furthermore, the adjournment is not excludable inasmuch as defendant did not expressly consent to the adjournment … . People v Bish, 2024 NY Slip Op 02409, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: If the People request an adjournment of a hearing but the record is silent about the length of the requested adjournment, the entire time between the request and the hearing may be chargeable to the People.

 

,

TRIAL TESTIMONY RENDERED SEVERAL COUNTS IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE CASE DUPLICITOUS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on several counts in this sexual abuse case, determined the trial testimony rendered the counts duplicitous:

… [T]he trial testimony rendered counts 4, 5, 7, and 8 duplicitous. ” ‘Even if a count facially charges one criminal act, that count is duplicitous if the evidence makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict’ ” … . A duplicitous count “may undermine the requirement of jury unanimity,” inasmuch as some jurors may find that defendant committed one criminal act under the count, while other jurors may find that defendant committed some other criminal act under the same count … .

At trial, the victim was unable to identify the number of times defendant touched her during the relevant time period. She testified that he touched her breasts “[a]t least two” times. The victim also testified that defendant put his fingers inside her vagina “[p]robably at least three” times and licked her vagina “[a]t least three times.” She further testified that when he touched her vagina, he would also touch her breasts, but she could not “remember the specifics” of each occurrence. Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude, with respect to counts 4, 5, 7, and 8, that “it is impossible to determine whether the jury reached a unanimous verdict on those counts . . . [and] impossible to determine whether defendant was convicted of an act for which he was not indicted” … . People v Hunt, 2024 NY Slip Op 02471, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: If the trial testimony makes it possible for the jury to convict based upon an allegation that was not part of the indictment, the conviction will be reversed.

 

,

17-YEAR-OLD’S ARE STATUTORILY EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS OF VICTIMS UNDER PENAL LAW 263.11, TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY; RISK-LEVEL REDUCED FROM TWO TO ONE (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s SORA risk-level from two to one, determined the 17-year-old involved in the offense was statutorily excluded from the class of victims:

… [T]he court erred in assessing 20 points for the number of victims under risk factor 3 … . The court based its assessment on a determination that a 17-year-old was a victim of defendant’s conduct. However, 17-year-olds are statutorily excluded from the class of victims under Penal Law § 263.11, to which defendant pleaded guilty. When those points are removed, defendant has a total of 60 points, making him a presumptive level one risk. People v Cockrell, 2024 NY Slip Op 02439, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: 17-year-old’s are statutorily excluded from the class of victims under Penal Law 263.11.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED A COMMUNITY OF PURPOSE WITH THE SHOOTER WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT AND FIREARMS CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s assault and related use and possession of a firearm convictions, determined there was insufficient evidence that defendant shared the intent to shoot the victim. The victim was shot. Defendant drove a car which followed the wounded victim who was then robbed by an occupant of the car:

The trial evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that defendant shared a community of purpose with the unidentified shooter to cause serious physical injury to the victim or that he aided the shooter in doing so … . To begin with, there was no evidence that defendant formed a plan with anyone to assault the victim or had any advance knowledge that the victim was going to be attacked … . Further, although there is proof that defendant was present, he cannot be observed on the surveillance video striking the victim or participating in any way in the altercation that preceded the shooting. In fact, the victim testified that, during the brief struggle, he did not know if defendant was there to help him or harm him and that it was defendant’s friends with whom he was actually fighting. Additionally, as noted above, there was no indication during this brief and seemingly chaotic interaction that defendant was aware that [anyone] had a gun …. This situation is also not akin to cases where an accomplice’s community of purpose with a fellow assailant can be inferred from his or her continued participation in an attack after the other produces a weapon … . … [T]here is evidence that, following the shooting, defendant drove a vehicle in the direction of the victim and stopped it [an assailant’s] command, at which time [the assailant] got out and robbed the victim. However, that alone is insufficient to establish that defendant shared a community of purpose to commit the earlier assault or provided assistance thereto. People v Walker, 2024 NY Slip Op 02346, Third Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s presence with the assailants when the victim was shot, and defendant’s driving a car following the wounded victim victim and stopping the car to allow an assailant to get out and rob the victim, did not demonstrate defendant shared a community of purpose with the shooter at the time of the shooting.

 

,

THERE WAS NO RECORD DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED OF THE JURY NOTE AND NO RECORD THE JUDGE RESPONDED TO THE NOTE, A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE NOTE REFERRED ONLY TO ONE COUNT, THE THREE COUNTS WERE FACTUALLY CONNECTED REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the absence of a record indicating defense counsel was notified of a note from the jury, or even that the judge responded to the note, was a mode of proceedings error. The People’s argument that the note addressed only one count of the indictment and the convictions on the other counts should survive was rejected. The nature of the jury’s question was relevant to all counts:

The fourth note stated: “We the jury request to hear the judge’s reading of count 1, including definitions and detail. Further, can you please confirm if it is up to our determination to decide if something is considered as “course of conduct” and “act”? As written on the verdict sheet, count 1 states “engaging in a course off conduct,” we want to confirm if this is a typo or not.” * * *

When an O’Rama error occurs, the question of whether the error in the proceedings related to some charges requires reversal on the other charges is determined on a case-by-case basis, with ‘due regard’ for the facts of the case, the nature of the error, and the ‘potential for prejudicial impact on the over-all outcome’ … .

Here, the three counts of the indictment were alleged to arise from a course or repetition of conduct in violation of the order of protection reasonably perceived as threatening to the victim’s safety (count 1), through means both electronic/written (count 2) and telephonic (count 3). Thus, given the underlying factual relationship between the crimes, defendant is entitled to a new trial … . People v Jamison, 2024 NY Slip Op 02286, First Dept 4-30-24

Practice Point: If the record is silent about whether counsel was notified of a jury note and whether the judge even responded to the note, that is a mode of proceedings error.

Practice Point: Although the jury note related to only one of the three counts, the convictions on the other two counts could not survive because all the counts were factually connected.

 

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