You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY COUNTY COURT FOR THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; THE MATTER WAS REMANDED FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined defendant was not given notice of some of the grounds County Court relied upon for an upward departure re: defendant’s SORA risk-level assessment. That constituted a violation of defendant’s right to due process:

While … defendant [was] on notice that his persistent sexually-motivated criminal conduct would be relied upon by the People as a factor for upward departure, there is no similar indication that his concurrent conviction for failure to register along with the facts underlying his juvenile delinquency adjudication would be considered … . … “[D]efendant was entitled to a sufficient opportunity to consider and muster evidence in opposition to the request for an upward departure” on the specific bases upon which the People, and consequently County Court, would rely in considering that relief … . … [T]the matter must be remanded for a new hearing, upon proper notice to defendant of the justifications relied upon by the People specific to their request for such relief. People v Maurer, 2023 NY Slip Op 05290, Third Dept 10-19-23

Practice Point: Due process requires that a defendant be notified of all of the evidence which will be relied upon by the People and the court for a SORA risk assessment.

 

PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDERS RESPONDING TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE TIME BETWEEN THE FILING OF A FELONY COMPLAINT AND ARRAIGNMENT ON AN INDICTMENT WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMSISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the COVID-19 toll specific to CPL 30.30 and 190.80 applied and the People, therefore, did not violate the speedy trial statute:

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on December 30, 2020, former Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 202.87, which provided that “[s]ection 30.30 and [s]ection 190.80 of the criminal procedure law are suspended to the extent necessary to toll any time periods contained therein for the period during which the criminal action is proceeding on the basis of a felony complaint through arraignment on the indictment or on a superior court information and thereafter shall not be tolled” (9 NYCRR 8.202.87). Successive executive orders extended Executive Order No. 202.87 through May 23, 2021 (see 9 NYCRR 8.202.87-8.202.106).

Upon renewal, the County Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial. Contrary to the determination of the court, Executive Order No. 202.87, while in effect, constituted a toll of the time within which the People must be ready for trial for the period from the date a felony complaint was filed through the date of a defendant’s arraignment on the indictment, with no requirement that the People establish necessity for a toll in each particular case … . People v Marino, 2023 NY Slip Op 05273, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here the time between the filing of the felony complaint and arraignment on the indictment was excluded from the speedy trial clock pursuant to COVID-19 pandemic Executive Orders.

 

,

DEFENDANT, IN THE PLEA COLLOQUY, SAID SHE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE; AT THAT POINT THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE SURE SHE WAS AWARE SHE WAS WAIVING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the judge, based on the plea colloquy, should have questioned the defendant about her waiver of her right to present a justification defense:

The trial court failed to determine defendant’s understanding and waiver of her right to present a defense of justification after defendant stated, during the plea colloquy, “I had to defend myself” and “I wasn’t just the aggressor in the situation” (see People v Muniz-Cayetano, 186 AD3d 1169, 1171-1172 [1st Dept 2020] …). The People concede that the particulars of this case are indistinguishable from those of Muniz-Cayetano and that defendant’s guilty plea should be vacated. People v Williams, 2023 NY Slip Op 05195, First Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant said she acted in self defense during the plea colloquy. At that point the judge should have made sure she knew about and was waiving the justification defense.

 

,

THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT MADE AN INFORMED DECISION TO WAIVE A VIABLE INSANITY DEFENSE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT VACATED THE PLEA AND DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT; DEFENDANT WAS RETURNED TO AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY UNDER A CIVIL GUARDIANSHIP ORDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s plea and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s plea was invalid because it was not clear he made an informed decision to waive a viable insanity defense:

As the People concede, the circumstances of this unique case warrant vacating the plea and dismissing the indictment. The plea allocution did not address whether defendant was making an informed decision to waive a potentially viable insanity defense … , and the record as a whole casts significant doubt on defendant’s mental competence and ability to understand the proceedings or the terms of his plea … .

Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is dismissal rather than a remand for further proceedings. Among other things, this 68-year-old, severely mentally ill defendant lives in a secured unit of an assisted living facility under a civil guardianship order. People v Cosme, 2023 NY Slip Op 05207, First Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: Here it was apparent defendant suffered from mental health issues. The plea was vacated and the indictment dismissed because the allocution did not make it clear that defendant had made an informed decisions to waive a viable insanity defense. Defendant was returned to an assisted living facility under a civil guardianship order.

 

, , ,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ARGUMENT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO READ THE INDICTMENT TO THE JURY TO SHOW THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE ALLEGATIONS OF COERCION IN THE INDICTMENT AND THE PROOF AT TRIAL WAS RENDERED MOOT BY THE DISMISSAL OF THE COERCION COUNT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE PROHIBITION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined defense counsel was properly prohibited from reading the indictment to the jury. Defense counsel sought to show that the allegations of coercion in the indictment differed from the proof presented by the People. Both the majority and the dissenter agreed that the proof of coercion was legally insufficient. Therefore the majority held defendant’s argument he should have been allowed to read the indictment to the jury was rendered moot. The dissent argued the prohibition deprived defendant of his right to present a defense:

In light of our conclusion, defendant’s contention that County Court erred in declining to charge the jury with certain lesser included offenses of coercion in the first degree has been rendered moot. The same is true with respect to defendant’s assertion that he was improperly prevented from reading the indictment to the jury during his opening statement and closing argument. That is, as limited by his appellate brief, the only particular claim articulated by defendant concerning this issue is that he should have been allowed to highlight for the jury the discrepancy between the allegation listed in the indictment relative to the coercion count and the proof expected to be presented or actually presented at trial, which is the very basis upon which that count has now been dismissed. 

From the dissent:

… [D]efendant’s trial strategy hinged on showing that the People had not proven the factual allegations in the indictment, and that County Court stymied that strategy by repeatedly refusing to allow defense counsel to read the indictment to the jury. County Court’s refusal to allow defense counsel to read the indictment to the jury in his opening statement violated defendant’s statutory right to “present[ ] his view of the case” in an opening statement that highlighted what he believed would be weaknesses in the People’s proof … . People v Knapp, 2023 NY Slip Op 05168, Third Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: Defense counsel wanted to read the indictment to the jury to show the discrepancy between the allegations of coercion and the proof presented at trial. County Court ruled defense counsel could not read the indictment to the jury. The majority held the issue was moot because the coercion count was dismissed because the evidence was deemed legally insufficient. The dissent argued the prohibition deprived defendant of his right to put on a defense.

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE EXCUSE; THE LOAN AGREEMENT WAS CRIMINALLY USURIOUS; THE MOTION TO DISIMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the default judgment should have been vacated in the interest of justice and the complaint dismissed based on documentary evidence. The loan which was the basis of the action was criminally usurious:

“CPLR 5015(a) ‘does not provide an exhaustive list as to when a default judgment may be vacated'” … . “In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5015(a), a court may vacate a default ‘for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice'” … . “[A] party is not necessarily required to establish a reasonable excuse in order to be entitled to vacatur in the interest of justice” … . * * *

The plaintiff does not dispute that the agreement effected an annual interest rate exceeding the criminally usurious threshold of 25% (see Penal Law § 190.40).

… “Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Here, … the defendants conclusively established through the submission of the agreement that it constituted a criminally usurious loan … . Crystal Springs Capital, Inc. v Big Thicket Coin, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 05121, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: A motion to vacate a default in the interest of justice does not require a reasonable excuse.

Practice Point: The usurious loan agreement justified dismissal based on documentary evidence.

 

, , ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING; RISK-ASSESSMENT REVERSED; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the SORA risk assessment, determined the People did not demonstrate defendant had waived his due process right to be present at the hearing. Although the error was not preserved, the Second Department considered the appeal in the interest of justice:

A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing … . “To establish whether a defendant, by failing to appear at a SORA hearing, has waived the right to be present, evidence must be shown that the defendant was advised of the hearing date, of the right to be present at the hearing, and that the hearing would be conducted in his or her absence” … . Reliable hearsay evidence, such as an affidavit, is admissible to establish waiver … . Here, the record is silent as to whether the defendant received notice of the SORA hearing and there was no evidence, hearsay or otherwise, that the defendant expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing. People v Perez, 2023 NY Slip Op 05161, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: Although a defendant can waive the due process right to be present at the SORA risk-assessment hearing, and the waiver can be proved by hearsay, here there was no evidence of a waiver and the risk assessment was reversed.

Practice Point: At issue here was defendant’s constitutional right to be present at the SORA risk-assessment hearing. Although the issue (his absence from the hearing) was not preserved, the appellate court considered the appeal in the interest of justice.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; HER SENTENCE WAS FURTHER REDUCED PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant’s appeal-waiver was invalid and further reduced her sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act:

The County Court did not discuss the appeal waiver with the defendant until after the defendant had already admitted her guilt as part of the plea agreement … . Further, when the court raised the issue of the appeal waiver, the defendant, who had no known prior contact with the criminal justice system, advised the court that she had not discussed the waiver with her attorney, which required a pause in the proceedings to give her an opportunity to do so. These circumstances, including the defendant’s experience and background, demonstrate that the purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid … .

Pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (L 2019, ch 31, § 1; L 2019, ch 55, § 1, part WW, § 1 [eff May 14, 2019]; hereinafter the DVSJA), courts may “impose reduced alternative, less severe, sentences in certain cases involving defendants who are victims of domestic violence” … . Here, while the County Court granted the defendant’s application for an alternative sentence under the DVSJA, we find that the sentence imposed should be reduced to the extent indicated herein … . People v Heft, 2023 NY Slip Op 05148, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: Defendant’s appeal waiver was deemed invalid, in part because she had not discussed the waiver with her attorney and had no prior contact with the criminal justice system.

Practice Point: Here County Court had reduced defendant’s sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act and the Second Department reduced it further.

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION AFTER NEW COUNSEL IS ASSIGNED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department sent the matter back for a ruling on defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea. Defendant’s attorney took a position adverse to the defendant’s by telling the judge the motion would not succeed. New counsel must be assigned:

Before sentencing, defendant made a written pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting, among other things, deficiencies in defense counsel’s performance with respect to the plea. The court assigned defendant new counsel, and the People opposed defendant’s motion. At the outset of the sentencing hearing, the court asked counsel if he was seeking an adjournment to supplement defendant’s pro se motion, and counsel responded: “No, I am not, and I am not adopting it because I read the People’s [opposition] and reviewed the case law on this issue and it really doesn’t seem to be worthy of asking for my client to take his plea back.” Under the circumstances, counsel took a position adverse to defendant, requiring assignment of new counsel on the motion … . People v Rivera-Santana, 2023 NY Slip Op 05101, First Dept 19-10-23

Practice Point: Here defense counsel told the judge defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea was weak, thereby taking a position adverse to defendant’s. The First Department sent the matter back for assignment of new counsel and consideration of the motion.

 

, ,

LYING TO AN INVESTIGATOR WHO RECORDS THE LIE IN A REPORT CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF A “FALSIFYING A BUSINESS RECORD” CHARGE; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after considering the unpreserved issue in the interest of justice, determined the People did not present legally sufficient evidence of the “falsifying a business record” charge. The People alleged defendant lied to the sheriff who interviewed him resulting in a false entry in the sheriff’s report. The report itself was not entered into evidence:

… [T]o meet its burden, the prosecution relied on testimony from a county sheriff’s office sergeant that, during the investigation into a shooting incident, he recorded his conversation with defendant in a report and the report became part of the business records for the sheriff’s office. The sergeant as well as additional sheriff’s deputies testified that defendant’s version of events conflicted with the concurrent observations of defendant’s gunshot wound by the members of the sheriff’s office. The People’s theory was that, by lying to the sergeant, defendant caused a false entry in the business records of the sheriff’s office. The trial testimony established, however, that the sergeant’s report was written to record the “condition or activity” of the sheriff’s office’s investigation into the shooting (Penal Law § 175.00 [2]). We conclude that there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the sergeant’s report contained a false record of that investigation. Indeed, the sergeant testified that the report accurately documented defendant’s responses to the sergeant’s investigatory questions. People v Andrews, 2023 NY Slip Op 05085, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: The Appellate Division can consider an unpreserved “legally insufficient evidence” issue.

Practice Point: Lying to an investigator who records the lie in the investigation report cannot be the basis for a “falsifying a business record” charge.

 

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