You are here: / Criminal Law
,

HERE THE LEVEL-THREE STOP AND FRISK FOR A SUSPECTED FIREARM WAS VALID; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming the denial of defendant’s suppression motion, explained the criteria for a level-three stop and frisk for a suspected firearm:

In assessing the propriety of a level-three stop and frisk of a defendant for a suspected firearm the court must consider three factors: First, whether there was proof of a describable object or of describable conduct that provides a reasonable basis for the police offer’s belief that the defendant had a gun in his possession … .

A stop and frisk for a firearm is justifiable in cases where the officer identifies the outline of a pistol in the defendant’s pocket … . Here, the officer described in detail the distinct pistol shape of the bulge in defendant’s jeans pocket, including the orientation of the barrel and pistol grip, that he observed over the course of approximately a minute. Pursuant to the first Prochilo factor, these observations constituted proof of a “describable object” that “provide[d] a reasonable basis for the police officer’s belief that the defendant had a gun in his possession,” justifying the officer’s immediate frisk of defendant’s pocket (Prochilo, 41 NY2d at 761).

The second Prochilo factor is whether the manner of the officer’s approach to the defendant and the seizure of the gun was reasonable under the circumstances (41 NY2d at 761). Following the observation of a gun-shaped bulge in a defendant’s pocket, an officer is generally justified in conducting a minimally invasive pat-down of the bulge to confirm that it is indeed a firearm … . Here, after observing the pistol-shaped bulge in defendant’s right rear jeans pocket, the officer conducted a pat-down of the bulge and confirmed that it was a gun. … Upon confirming that the object was a firearm, the officer had probable cause to effectuate an arrest and reasonably tackled defendant to the ground. People v Bowman, 2023 NY Slip Op 06494, First Dept 12-19-23

Practice Point: This decision explains the criteria for a valid level-three stop and frisk for a suspected firearm.

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN PROVIDING DISCOVERY; THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS INVALID AND DID NOT STOP THE SPEEDY-TRIAL CLOCK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the People did not exercise due diligence in providing discovery to the defense. Therefore the certificate of compliance (COC) was invalid and did not stop the speedy trial clock. The prosecution was time-barred:

In 2019, the New York State Legislature enacted sweeping reforms that expanded and restructured disclosure obligations in criminal cases, effective at the start of 2020 (see L 2019, ch 59, § 1, pt LLL). This appeal concerns a new requirement set forth in CPL article 245 that the People file a certificate of compliance (COC) with their statutory disclosure obligations (see CPL 245.50 [1], [3]). * * *

Due diligence is a mixed question of fact and law, and thus we consider whether the fact finder’s conclusions are supported by the record … . Viewed under the proper legal standard, there is no record support for the conclusion of the courts below that prior to filing the initial COC, the People exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to identify mandatory discovery items relating to this case.

The belated disclosure here consisted of routinely produced disclosure materials—the creation of at least one of which was mandated by law … . The absence of such significant items of disclosure was readily noticed by the defense, which then brought it to the attention of the People and the court. The prosecution had two opportunities to establish that they had exercised due diligence, but failed to do so. At the appearance on May 26th, in which defense counsel first called attention to the missing items, the prosecutor simply asserted that he had “checked” without any elaboration as to what efforts were made to verify whether there was any outstanding discovery or whether the disclosure requested by the defense—which was in the possession of the People (see CPL 245.20 [2])—actually existed. The prosecutor speculated that such disclosure items did not exist and had not been created, and otherwise stated in a cursory fashion that all discovery had been turned over. When the parties appeared on July 6th following Bay’s CPL 30.30 motion, the People again made no mention of any efforts taken to ascertain the existence of discovery materials before the COC was filed, nor did they explain why some discovery was initially missing or how it came into their possession. People v Bay, 2023 NY Slip Op 06407, CtApp 12-14-23

Practice Point: Here the People did not exercise due diligence in complying with their discovery obligations. Therefore the certificate of compliance (COC) was invalid and did not stop the speedy trial clock. If the People can demonstrate they exercised due diligence in providing discovery, the COC will not be deemed improper.

 

, , ,

HERE A WITNESS TO THE SHOOTING IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL; UNDER THE FACTS, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED; THE COURT OFFERED GUIDANCE ON HOW TO HANDLE OR AVOID THE SITUATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a comprehensive dissenting opinion, affirming the Appellate Division, determined defendant was not prejudiced by a witness to the shooting who identified him as the shooter for the first-time at trial. The opinion takes note of the suggestiveness of a first-time identification at trial and offers instructions on how the situation should be handled and/or avoided. Here, however, the the defendant was aware of the witness and did not request any identification procedures, surveillance video captured both the shooter and the victim, the victim knew the shooter, and the victim identified the shooter. The court noted that any error was clearly harmless:

Concerning identifications made at trial, this Court and many others have recognized the inherent suggestiveness of the traditional in-court identification procedure, with a single defendant sitting at a table with defense counsel … . As with an unduly suggestive pretrial identification, it will often be immediately clear to the witness who the accused defendant is, especially if the witness has a rudimentary knowledge of courtroom seating arrangements. The principal danger is that, faced with the pressures of testifying at trial, the witness will identify the defendant as the perpetrator simply because the defendant is sitting in the appropriate spot, and not because the witness recognizes the defendant as the same person that they observed during the crime. Inasmuch as the traditional courtroom seating arrangement may itself suggest to the witness who should be identified, trial courts must be vigilant to ensure that where a witness has not previously identified the defendant in a properly conducted pretrial identification procedure such as a photo array or lineup, the suggestiveness of a first-time, in-court identification procedure does not create an unreasonable danger of a mistaken identification. People v Perdue, 2023 NY Slip Op 06404, CtApp 12-14-23

Practice Point: Here, under the unique facts of the case, defendant was not prejudiced by allowing a witness to identify him as the shooter for the first time at trial. The court offered guidance on how the situation should be handled and/or avoided.

 

,

HERE THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, dismissing the superior court information, determined the waiver of indictment was invalid because there was not evidence it was signed in open court:

A defendant “may waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney,” and “such waiver shall be evidenced by written instrument signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or her counsel” … . Although the record reflects that defendant orally agreed to waive indictment in open court on November 19, 2020, the written waiver of indictment, which defendant and defense counsel acknowledged signing, is dated November 17, 2020, and the minutes do not demonstrate that defendant signed the waiver in open court, as constitutionally mandated. “Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved for review by a motion to withdraw the plea” … . “Moreover, neither the written waiver of indictment, to which the District Attorney executed consent on [October 14, 2020], nor County Court’s undated order approving the waiver, indicates that the waiver was signed in open court” on November 19, 2020 … . “In light of this jurisdictional defect, defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated and the superior court information must be dismissed” … . People v Berry, 2023 NY Slip Op 06410, Third Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: Here the waiver of indictment was deemed invalid because there was no indication the waiver was signed in open court, which is a jurisdictional defect. The superior court information was therefore dismissed.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, DECIDED TO ENHANCE DEFENDANT’S AGREED-UPON SENTENCE BASED UPON HER RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY PROBATION FOR THE PRESENTENCE REPORT; THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT ASK FOR THE ENHANCED SENTENCE; THE DEFENSE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, THEREBY DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, over a dissent, determined that the defense was not given an opportunity to address the sentencing judge’s sua sponte decision to enhance the agreed-upon sentence based on defendant’s responses to questions posed by probation for the presentence report. The prosecutor did not see any conflict between defendant’s plea allocution and her responses in the report and did not call for an enhanced sentence: So the defense was taken by surprise.. Defense counsel requested a hearing but the request was denied:

After the parties had an opportunity to state their arguments, the court engaged in a lengthy colloquy before … stating that it disagreed with the People’s conclusion that there was no violation of the plea agreement and determining that it would enhance defendant’s sentence to the maximum allowable term of imprisonment. It was at this point that defendant first had any indication that she was facing a potential sentencing enhancement and, in response, defense counsel immediately requested a hearing, which County Court summarily denied.… .In effect, that determination precluded defendant and her counsel an opportunity to refute the accuracy of the officer’s statements in the PSR that were relied upon by the court in finding that she had violated a condition of her plea by failing to answer the probation officer’s questions truthfully … . Moreover, County Court made no further inquiry as to whether defendant understood the questions asked during her Probation Department interview and whether she had answered them untruthfully or contrary to her statements at her plea proceedings … .

While a hearing is not necessarily required in all instances, the circumstances before us warranted some form of inquiry before County Court could impose an enhanced sentence … . People v Dibble, 2023 NY Slip Op 06411, Third Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: When the judge, sua sponte, decided to enhance defendant’s agreed-upon sentence because of defendant’s responses to questions posed by probation for the presentence report, defense counsel immediately requested a hearing to address the issue (which had not been raised by the prosecution). The request was denied. The Third Department agreed that a hearing was required in this case and vacated the sentence.

 

, ,

THE DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION REFORM ACT (DLSRA), WHICH ELIMINATED LICENSE SUSPENSIONS FOR FAILURE TO PAY A FINE, DOES NOT VACATE UNLICENSED-OPERATION CONVICTIONS BASED UPON THE FAILURE TO PAY A FINE AND DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THE APPEAL WAIVER HERE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT SUGGESTED DEFENDANT COULD NOT FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming defendant’s unlicensed operation of a vehicle conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined the Driver’s License Suspension Reform Act (DLSRA) did not vacate defendant’s conviction. The DLSRA eliminated the failure to pay a fine as a basis for suspension of a driver’s license and does not apply retroactively. Defendants’ waiver of appeal was deemed invalid because the written waiver indicated a notice of appeal could not be filed:

… [T]he written waiver of appeal contained language … suggesting that the defendant was barred from even filing a notice of appeal … . The People contend that because they did not enforce the language stating that defendant’s appeal would be deemed a motion to vacate, the oral colloquy at the sentencing hearing cures the defect in the written waiver or otherwise renders defendant’s waiver valid. This contention is without merit … . …

The DLSRA amended Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510(4-a) to remove the failure to pay a fine as a basis for the suspension of a driver’s license … . The Legislative intent was to lift suspensions of licenses and lessen the financial burdens on the defendants by structuring an affordable installment payment plan … .

Nothing in the statutory language, which is the “clearest indicator of legislative intent” suggests that there was any intent to authorize the vacatur of convictions under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 that arose from license suspensions predicated on failures to pay a fine … . People v Castro, 2023 NY Slip Op 06452, First Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: The Driver’s License Suspension Reform Act (DLSRA) does not vacate unlicensed-operation convictions stemming from a failure to pay a fine and does not apply retroactively.

Practice Point: A written waiver of appeal which indicates a notice of appeal cannot be filed is invalid.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE OF “SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (NO TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION?) BUT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reducing defendant’s assault first conviction to assault second, determined the evidence of serious disfigurement was legally insufficient. The issue was not preserved (no motion for a trial order of dismissal on the issue?) but was considered on appeal in the interest of justice:

The People failed to demonstrate that the victim, who sustained a two-to-three-centimeter laceration on her forehead, which required three stitches and resulted in a small scar, suffered a serious disfigurement … . Accordingly, the convictions on those counts must be vacated. However, because the evidence sufficed to prove that the victim suffered a physical injury (Penal Law § 10.00[9]), we reduce the second-degree assault conviction to third-degree assault (Penal Law § 120.00[1]). People v Murray, 2023 NY Slip Op 06454, First Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: If there is a “legally insufficient evidence” issue, raise it on appeal even if the issue was not preserved by a motion for a trial order of dismissal. The issue may be addressed in the interest of justice.

 

, , , ,

THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEAS, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE THE GUILTY PLEAS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter, determined defendant was not warned about the possibility of deportation based upon his guilty pleas. The matter was sent back to allow defendant to move to vacate the pleas:

The defendant’s contention that his due process rights were violated due to the Supreme Court’s failure to warn him that his pleas could subject him to deportation is excepted from the requirement of preservation because the record does not demonstrate that the defendant was aware that he could be deported as a consequence of his pleas of guilty … . Indeed, here, the record shows that the court failed to address the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the defendant’s pleas of guilty … .

… [W]e remit the matters to the Supreme Court … to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his pleas of guilty and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter … . Upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court warned him of the possibility of deportation … . In its report to this Court, the Supreme Court shall set forth whether the defendant moved to vacate his pleas of guilty and, if so, its determination as to whether the defendant made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing … . People v Jean, 2023 NY Slip Op 06380, Second Dept 12-13-23

Practice Point: If the record does not demonstrate a defendant was aware of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea, the matter will be remitted to give the defendant the opportunity to move to vacate the plea. The issue need not be preserved for appeal.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS MURDER CASE MADE SERIOUS REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WHICH WERE SUMMARILY DENIED WITHOUT AN INQUIRY; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS VIOLATED; NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have summarily dismissed defendant’s serious request for new counsel without making an inquiry and factual findings. Defendant’s right to counsel was violated:

In 2017, the defendant was charged by indictment with murder in the second degree, among other crimes. While the matter was pending, the defendant submitted to the Supreme Court a writing, dated December 24, 2018, in which he claimed that he had had no conferences or meetings with his assigned counsel, that counsel had failed to appear in court on several control dates, that there had been a complete breakdown in communication between the defendant and counsel, and that counsel’s omnibus motion contained numerous factual inaccuracies. The defendant also requested a six-week adjournment to attempt to secure representation from a particular attorney who purportedly had agreed to represent the defendant.

At a pretrial proceeding on January 4, 2019, the Supreme Court summarily denied the defendant’s application without making any inquiry. During a subsequent appearance, in June 2019, the defendant read a lengthy statement in which he recounted that his prior application was denied and listed his reasons for not wanting to be represented by his assigned counsel. * * *

… Supreme Court’s conduct in summarily denying the defendant’s application for an adjournment, without conducting any inquiry, and telling him that the court would not relieve assigned counsel and that his alternative was to represent himself pro se, violated the defendant’s right to counsel …. People v Scott, 2023 NY Slip Op 06261, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: A serious request for new counsel should not be summarily denied without an inquiry. Here defendant was denied his right to counsel by the judge’s failure to address his request. A new trial before a different judge was ordered.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING DID NOT MAKE DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT, REQUIRING REMITTAL; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IN PART BECAUSE COUNSEL DID NOT ARGUE FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s level-three SORA risk-assessment, noted that the judge failed to set forth all of the relevant findings of fact and determined defense counsel was ineffective. Defense counsel was not aware that youthful offender adjudications can be considered by the SORA court and defense counsel failed to argue for a downward departure. The departure would have been warranted because defendant, who was 17 at the time, had been charged with a misdemeanor based on having sex with his girlfriend:

Failure to comply with the statutory mandate to make detailed findings on the record would alone require that the matter be remitted to County Court … . * * *

The only argument advanced by defendant’s counsel at the SORA hearing was a challenge to the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 9, on the basis that a youthful offender adjudication should be precluded in assessing defendant’s sex offender classification. That argument, however, was devoid of merit … , and demonstrated counsel’s unfamiliarity with existing and applicable case law … . * * *

… [Counsel] did not request a downward departure from the presumptive risk level three classification. The crime underlying the youthful offender adjudication was the class A misdemeanor of sexual misconduct … , stemming from defendant, who had just turned 17, having sexual intercourse with his girlfriend, who was about two months younger. Downward departure has been found appropriate where there is a “relatively slight age difference between [the] defendant and the victim [and] undisputed evidence that the victim’s lack of consent was premised only on her inability to consent by virtue of her age” … . Notwithstanding facts and case law that could support a reasonable argument for a downward departure here, counsel failed to make such a request. In our view, the foregoing establishes that defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel … . People v Wilcox, 2023 NY Slip Op 06175, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: The judge in a SORA risk-level proceeding is required to make detailed findings of fact.

Practice Point: Defense counsel in a SORA risk-level proceeding is ineffective if counsel is not aware youthful offender adjudications can be considered by the SORA court.

 

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