You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS AND WAS APPARENTLY ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT SUICIDE WHEN HE CAUSED THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT RESULTING IN THE ASSAULT CHARGE, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE SEVEN-YEAR SENTENCE FOR ASSAULT (THE MAXIMUM) SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE SENTENCE SHOULD BE REDUCED; A CONCURRENCE ARGUED THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS VALID (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent and a concurrence, determined (1) the waiver of appeal was invalid, and (2) the sentence was not harsh and excessive. The dissenters argued defendant exhibited signs of mental illness and the traffic accident which was the basis of the assault charge was a suicide attempt, warranting a lesser sentence and rehabilitative measures. The concurrence argued the appeal waiver was valid:

The written appeal waiver executed by defendant during the plea allocution is overly broad in several respects, as it purported to create an absolute bar to a direct appeal by indicating that the appeal waiver “mark[s] the end of [his] case” and precludes him from pursuing collateral relief “in any state or federal court” … . Although County Court’s brief oral allocution advised defendant that certain appellate rights survive the waiver, this was not sufficient to cure the defects in the written waiver … and did not establish that he understood that some collateral and federal review survives the waiver …  Consequently, defendant did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive the right to appeal … .

From the dissent:

… [I]t is evident that defendant’s criminal conduct was not borne of a malicious intent nor of a conscious choice to act with reckless disregard for the lives of others; rather, the entirety of his conduct appears attributable to his profound mental illness, which was no longer adequately controlled at the time of the incident and casts serious doubt on the level of his culpability. Moreover, the record reveals that, at the time of the incident, defendant was 26 years of age, had no history of prior unlawful conduct and had been a productive member of society, as demonstrated by, among other things, his participation in a reserve officer training corps program while attending college … . Under these circumstances, we find that the societal benefits of deterrence and punishment achieved through a seven-year term of imprisonment, which is the maximum legal sentence for his conviction, are minimal and, more importantly, they are far outweighed by the rehabilitative considerations that support reducing this specific defendant’s sentence … . People v Appiah, 2023 NY Slip Op 03955, Third Dept 7-27-23

Practice Point: The appeal waiver was deemed invalid because it intimated all appellate issues were precluded.

Practice Point: Although defendant was suffering from mental illness and was apparently attempting to commit suicide when he caused the traffic accident (the basis of his assault conviction), the majority concluded his seven-year sentence should not be reduced. A two-justice dissent disagreed.

 

PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER’S ABSCONDING FROM SUPERVISION IS A NON-TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF PAROLE AUTHORIZING REINCARCERATION FOR 30 MONTHS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner committed a non-technical violation of his parole (absconding from supervision) for which he could be incarcerated for 30 months. Supreme Court had determined petitioner had committed a technical violation for which he could be incarcerated for only 15 days:

… [P]etitioner was released to postrelease supervision on August 4, 2020. On August 11, 2020, petitioner was charged with violating various conditions of release, including that he not abscond from supervision, and a parole warrant was issued. In March 2021, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter DOCCS) was advised that petitioner had been arrested and charged with assault. DOCCS then issued a supplemental parole violation notice that included various new violation charges, including that petitioner had committed an assault while on release. In April 2021, a final parole revocation hearing was held during which petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge of absconding from supervision in satisfaction of all the violations with which he was charged. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) ordered that petitioner be held for 30 months. * * *

… [P]etitioner’s condition of parole prohibiting him from absconding — that he admitted to violating, prescribing petitioner from “intentionally avoiding supervision by failing to maintain contact with my [p]arole [o]fficer and failing to reside at my approved residence” — is in line with the Legislature’s concerns regarding sex offenders released on parole and is also reasonably related to petitioner’s sex offense and efforts to protect the public from the commission of a repeat of that offense so as to warrant classifying him as a non-technical offender under Executive Law § 259 (7) (b). People ex rel. Marrero v Stanford, 2023 NY Slip Op 03964, Third Dept 7-27-23

Practice Point: Under the Less is More Act DOCCS must determine whether a parole violation is technical, allowing only minimal reincarceration, or non-technical, allowing reincarceration up to the balance of the period of post-release supervision. Here the sex offender’s absconding from supervision was deemed a non-technical violation allowing reincarceration for 30 months.

 

THE DISSENT IN THIS PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER CASE ARGUED THE 34-YEAR SENTENCE FOR THE 34-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE, NOTING THAT THE BURGLARIES WERE IN THE DAYTIME WHEN NO ONE WAS HOME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the 34-year sentence for four counts of burglary and related offenses was not unduly harsh or excessive. The majority concluded that the schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder diagnoses were self-reported and unsupported:

We … disagree with our dissenting colleague that a reduction in the defendant’s sentence is warranted due to the defendant’s mental health condition. While it is undisputed that the defendant qualified for some level of mental health services, and, as the trial testimony reflected, among other things, that the defendant’s former parole officer was assigned to parolees that had a mental health diagnosis, the nature and scope of the defendant’s mental health condition was never probed at trial or at sentencing. The diagnoses of schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder were self-reported by the defendant to the Department of Probation, but no medical records were introduced to corroborate the defendant’s statements. Moreover, at sentencing, the People introduced an audio recording of a phone call made by the defendant … , while he was incarcerated during the pendency of this matter, in which he admitted to having previously lied about having auditory hallucinations in order to acquire supportive housing.

From the dissent:

The gravity of a defendant’s criminal conduct, a defendant’s extensive criminal history, and the need for societal protection are already taken into consideration by the Penal Law provisions providing enhanced sentences for persistent violent felony offenders … . Contrary to the determination of my colleagues, nothing in this record warranted a further enhancement of the already-enhanced minimum aggregate sentence of an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 16 years to life, followed by lifetime parole supervision.

The defendant committed daytime burglaries when no one was home, and stole items such as jewelry, fur coats, and electronics. No victim had any encounter with the defendant. Even without considering any other factors, an aggregate term of imprisonment of 34 years to life is grossly disproportionate to the harm caused by the defendant’s conduct. People v West, 2023 NY Slip Op 03932, Second Dept 7-26-23

Practice Point: Here the sentence was already enhanced by defendant’s persistent violent felony status when it was further enhanced by the sentencing court. The majority concluded the sentence was not harsh and excessive. The dissent disagreed, noting that all the burglaries took place in the daytime when no one was home.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS OUTSIDE HIS RESIDENCE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND A PROTECTIVE SWEEP WAS CONDUCTED INSIDE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE; ITEMS OBSERVED IN THE RESIDENCE WERE LATER SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT; BECAUSE THE POLICE HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT OTHERS WERE PRESENT IN THE RESIDENCE, THE PROTECTIVE SWEEP OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE OBSERVED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department held that items observed by the police during a “protective sweep” of his residence should have been suppressed. At the time of defendant’s arrest and the protective sweep defendant was outside of his residence. The police had no reason to believe others were inside the residence:

Upon a lawful arrest, the police may conduct a limited protective sweep of the premises, but this ‘is justified only when the police have articulable facts upon which to believe that there is a person present who may pose a danger to those on the scene’ … . The purported protective sweep conducted here was improper, as there were no articulable facts supporting a belief that any other person was present inside the trailer, let alone a person who could pose a threat to those on the scene … . Neither the search warrant nor the suppression hearing testimony reflected that anyone other than defendant was ever observed or believed to be inside the trailer, and there was nothing referenced that would serve to indicate that there was any lingering threat. People v Hadlock, 2023 NY Slip Op 03819, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: The defendant was arrested outside his residence and the police conducted a protective sweep of the residence which led to the seizure of contraband observed during the sweep. Because the police had no reason to believe anyone else was present, the sweep of the residence was not justified and the observed items should have been suppressed.

 

, ,

AFTER DECLARING A MISTRIAL, THE JUDGE DID NOT DISMISS THE INDICTMENT OR AUTHORIZE A NEW INDICTMENT; THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS IN THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WHICH WERE IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT (WHICH WAS STILL VALID) THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE ALLOWED TO STAND; THE CONVICTION ON THE COUNT WHICH WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT WAS REVERSED; DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT ATTACH AFTER A MISTRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on one of three counts, determined the superseding indictment which came down after a mistrial on the original indictment was a nullity because the trial judge did not dismiss the original indictment or authorize the People to re-present a new indictment. The issue was not preserved and the Third Department considered it in the interest of justice. Because defendant had been convicted of two counts which were in the original indictment, those convictions were allowed to stand because the original indictment was never dismissed. The Third Department noted that double jeopardy principles do not attach to a mistrial. The conviction on the third count, which was not in the original indictment, was reversed:

… [B]ecause the court did not, upon declaring the mistrial on the original indictment, “dismiss the indictment or authorize the People to re-present a new indictment to the [g]rand [j]ury[,] . . . the People were limited to retrying defendant upon the same accusatory instrument” … ; thus, the superseding indictment is a nullity … . However, reversal of the judgment of conviction is not required given that both indictments contained two identical counts … . * * * This conclusion, however, does not extend to count 1 of the superseding indictment, charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree … , which was not charged in the original indictment; therefore, we reverse that conviction. To the extent that defendant raises double jeopardy concerns, as the first trial ended in a mistrial, double jeopardy principles do not attach … . People v Gentry, 2023 NY Slip Op 03818, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: If, after a mistrial, the judge does not dismiss the indictment or authorize a new indictment, the original indictment remains. Double jeopardy does not attach.

Practice Point: If, after a mistrial, a superseding indictment is brought without the trial court’s authorization, the superseding indictment is a nullity and the original indictment remains in effect.

 

,

THE NONHEARSAY ALLEGATIONS IN THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE “PHYSICAL INJURY” ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD RENDERING THE PETITION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, determined the factual part of the petition alleging an act which would constitute assault third if done by an adult was jurisdictionally defective because it did not set forth every element of the offense. Specifically the petition did not sufficiently allege “physical injury:”

“For a juvenile delinquency petition, or a count thereof, to be sufficient on its face, the factual part of the petition or of any supporting depositions must set forth sworn, nonhearsay allegations sufficient to establish, if true, every element of each crime charged and the alleged delinquent’s commission thereof” … . Such allegations must be set forth in the petition or the supporting depositions (see Family Ct Act § 311.2[3] …). “The failure to comply with this requirement constitutes a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect that deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition or count” … . Here, neither the petition nor the supporting depositions provided sworn, nonhearsay allegations as to a physical injury sustained by the complainant named in count 5 (see Penal Law § 120.00[2] …). Accordingly, that count was jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed … . Matter of Yacere D., 2023 NY Slip Op 03781, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: A petition in a juvenile delinquency must include nonhearsay allegations supporting every element of the underlying offense or it is jurisdictionally defective. Here the allegations of physical injury in the context of assault third were insufficient.

 

,

THE APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT WAS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN INFORMANT WHO WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress the firearm found in a search of his apartment should have been granted. The application for the search warrant was supported by uncorroborated information from an informant who was not shown to be reliable:

In support of the search warrant application, a police officer averred that he was informed by a confidential informant that the informant had observed the defendant with a handgun on three occasions, two of which were when the defendant was leaving the defendant’s apartment. As the defendant correctly contends, the police failed to establish that the information given by the confidential informant was reliable . The confidential informant’s statement was not under oath or against penal interests… , the informant had not demonstrated a “proven track record of supplying reliable information in the past,” and the only information given by the informant that the police independently corroborated prior to executing the search warrant was the fact that the defendant lived at the subject apartment and the description of the premises given by the informant … . People v Vincent, 2023 NY Slip Op 03808, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: If the application for a search warrant is based upon information from an informant, the application must demonstrate the informant and the information is reliable. Here there was no evidence the informant had provided accurate information in the past and the information was not sufficiently corroborated by other evidence.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT’S ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER CONVICTION RESTED ENTIRELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF A JAILHOUSE INFORMANT WHICH WAS AT ODDS WITH THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO; THE TESTIMONY OF THE INFORMANT WAS REJECTED, RENDERING DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s accomplice-to-murder conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. There was evidence the shooter came to and left the area where the shooting took place in a white sedan. Defendant owned a white sedan but it was not possible to tell whether the white sedan in the surveillance video was defendant’s. The People presented the testimony of a jailhouse informant who claimed defendant admitted dropping off and picking up the shooter. But the evidence given by the informant did not comport with the video surveillance of the white sedan and was therefore rejected by the Fourth Department:

… [W]e find that the version of events that the informant attributed to defendant is completely at odds with the video evidence establishing that the codefendant took an efficient, one-block circuitous route from the side street where the white sedan parked to the bar and then back to the sedan. The timing of events as established by the video evidence is too tight to permit any potential diversions or alternate routes to have been taken by the codefendant, much less the irrational choice of running along a busy thoroughfare several blocks away from the white sedan. Further, the informant’s testimony is too specific to permit the conclusion that any inconsistency between it and the video evidence is the innocuous result of an imprecise account. We therefore conclude that this is an appropriate case to substitute our own credibility determination for that made by the jury and find that the informant’s testimony is not credible ,,, . Absent the informant’s testimony, there is no evidence from which to reasonably infer that defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to cause the death of another person … or that defendant knew that the codefendant was armed at the time defendant transported him to the bar … . People v Ramos, 2023 NY Slip Op 03755, Fourth Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: This decision is a clear example of the difference between a “legal sufficiency of the evidence” and a “weight of the evidence” analysis. Here the informant’s testimony describing a jailhouse confession by the defendant rendered the evidence legally sufficient. However the informant’s testimony was deemed incredible because it conflicted with the video evidence. The informant’s testimony was rejected by the appellate court rendering the conviction against the weight of the evidence.

Practice Point: If you search this website by clicking on the category “Criminal Law” and type “weight of the evidence” in the search bar, you will find many cases which are decided using the “weight of the evidence” label but which actually find the evidence legally insufficient. Appellate courts are now willing to reverse convictions as against the weight of the evidence where the legal sufficiency argument was not raised in the trial order of dismissal motion or where the TOD motion was not renewed upon the close of proof. Therefore, if there are deficiencies in the proof at trial, even if the legal insufficiency argument cannot be raised on appeal because it was not preserved, the “weight of the evidence” argument should be raised.

 

 

,

THE SPEEDY TRIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WERE VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the juvenile delinquency adjudication and dismissing the petition, determined the speedy trial requirements were violated:

“Where [a] juvenile is not detained, an adjudication on the merits of the petition’s charges, known as the ‘fact-finding’ phase of the process, ‘shall commence not more than [60] days after the conclusion of the initial appearance,’ subject to adjournments for good cause and special circumstances” (…Family Ct Act § 340.1 [2]). A court may adjourn a fact-finding hearing “on its own motion or on motion of the presentment agency for good cause shown for . . . not more than [30] days if the respondent is not in detention” and “[t]he court shall state on the record the reason for any adjournment of the fact-finding hearing” … . However, “a judicial referral for adjustment under Family C[t] Act § 320.6 operates to toll the limitations period set forth in Family C[t] Act § 340.1” … . “Efforts at adjustment . . . may not extend for a period of more than three months without leave of the court, which may extend the period for an additional two months” … .

Here, the record establishes that the initial appearance on the petition was on February 1, 2021, at which time respondent appeared with counsel, was arraigned and entered a general denial to the petition (see Family Ct Act §§ 320.1; 320.4). Measured from the February 1 initial appearance date, 273 days passed before the scheduled November 1, 2021 fact-finding hearing.[FN3] Of the 273 days, tolling for the entire adjustment period of 153 days[*3], leaves 120 days before the scheduled fact-finding hearing, well-beyond the initial 60-day speedy trial period, as well as the 90-day speedy trial period, assuming without deciding that the 30-day adjournment was properly granted (see Family Ct Act § 340.1 [4], [5]). As such, the speedy trial requirements relative to juvenile delinquency proceedings were violated and the petition must be dismissed. Matter of Zachary L., 2023 NY Slip Op 03735, Third Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: The speedy trial requirements for a juvenile delinquency proceeding, explained in this decision, were violated.

 

, ,

AT THE TIME OF THE JUVENILE’S ADMISSION TO POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY THE JUDGE DID NOT INFORM HIM OR HIS MOTHER OF THE EXACT NATURE OF HIS “PLACEMENT OUTSIDE THE HOME OR ITS POSSIBLE DURATION” AS REQUIRED BY FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 3213(1); ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the juvenile’s admission in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, determined the juvenile and his mother were not adequately informed of the consequences of the admission to possession of stolen property:

… [T]he allocution in which respondent admitted to [possession of stolen property] was fatally defective because Family Court … failed to comply with the requirements of Family Ct Act § 321.3 (1). At the time of his admission, Family Court commented on some possible dispositions including being “placed outside of [his] home . . . for a period of time.” Neither respondent nor his mother were informed of “the exact nature of his placement outside of the home or its possible duration” … . “Inasmuch as the provisions of Family Ct Act § 321.3 (1) are mandatory and cannot be waived, the order must be reversed” … . Matter of Tashawn MM., 2023 NY Slip Op 03745, Third Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: At the time of a juvenile’s admission in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the juvenile must be informed of the exact nature of any “placement outside of the home and its possible duration.” The failure to so inform the juvenile requires reversal of the placement order.

 

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