You are here: / Criminal Law

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED RE: CERTAIN WEAPONS-POSSESSION COUNTS (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department concluded that the sentences on certain weapons-possession counts should not have been imposed consecutively:

The conviction on count 2 stemmed from defendant’s possession and intent to use an operable, loaded .357 caliber revolver in violation of Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b) and his conviction on count 3 was based upon his mere unlawful possession of that same firearm in violation of Penal Law § 265.03 (3), regardless of any intent to use the weapon. Insofar as defendant’s possession of the weapon was a material element of both weapon possession counts, was part of the same act resulting in the murder, and there was no evidence that defendant possessed the weapon with purposes unrelated to his intent to shoot the victim, the sentence imposed on count 3 is modified to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on count 2 … .

County Court also erred in running the sentences on counts 1 and 3 consecutively to one another. “[W]here a defendant is charged with criminal possession of a weapon pursuant to Penal Law § 265.03 (3), as well as a crime involving use of that weapon . . . consecutive sentencing” is allowed “so long as the defendant knowingly unlawfully possesses a loaded firearm before forming the intent to cause a crime with that weapon” … . Here, however, the People’s theory of the case, which the jury ultimately believed, was that defendant had already formed the specific intent to kill the victim when he procured the revolver … . People v Graham, 2023 NY Slip Op 01819, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Here consecutive sentences should not have been imposed re: certain weapons-possession counts.

 

, , ,

ABSENT A STIPULATION BY THE PARTIES, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE WITHDRAWN THE FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the family offense petition should not have been withdrawn by the judge because the parties did not stipulate to the withdrawal:

Where, as here, the matter has been submitted to the court, “the court may not order an action discontinued except upon the stipulation of all parties appearing in the action” (CPLR 3217[b]). In this case, there was no stipulation from the parties. Thus, the court erred in directing that the petition was withdrawn … . Matter of Johnson v Lomax, 2023 NY Slip Op 01675, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: A judge cannot withdraw a family offense petition which has been submitted to the court without a stipulation by the parties.

 

THE RAPE FIRST AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT FIRST CONVICTIONS WERE VACATED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF TWO PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT COUNTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated the convictions of rape first and criminal sexual act first as inclusory concurrent counts of two of the predatory sexual assault counts. People v Heyward, 2023 NY Slip Op 01651, First Dept 3-28-23

Practice Point: Here the rape first and criminal sexual act first convictions were vacated as inclusory concurrent counts of two predatory sexual assault counts.

 

, ,

​ THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE TRIAL WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL; A MIDTRIAL RODRIGUEZ HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing to determine whether a witness’s identification of defendant was confirmatory, noted that the judge should not have found the identification confirmatory for the first time based on the witness’s trial testimony. A Rodriguez hearing should have been when the issue came up at trial:

The witness in question disclosed on cross-examination at trial that he had identified defendant as the assailant in a photograph shown to him by the police. The People’s CPL 710.30 notice did not reference this identification. Defense counsel thus asked the court to strike the witness’s testimony on the ground of lack of notice, but the court, relying on the witness’s trial testimony, ruled that the People were not required to give notice because the identification was confirmatory. That was error. As the Court of Appeals has made clear, “prior familiarity should not be resolved at trial in the first instance” (Rodriguez, 79 NY2d at 452 …), and, in any event, the witness’s trial testimony was not sufficient to establish as a matter of law that the identification was confirmatory.

Although the witness testified that he knew defendant because he had seen him “a couple of times” at the barber shop, and that the two had each other’s phone numbers, he also testified that he did not know defendant well, that he knew him only by a common nickname, and that they never spoke again after the assault. A midtrial Rodriguez hearing would have allowed defense counsel to flesh out the extent of the relationship between the two men, thereby allowing the court to make a more informed determination as to whether the pretrial identification of defendant was confirmatory as a matter of law. People v Alcaraz-ubiles, 2023 NY Slip Op 01637, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: If the defense is not given notice of a witness’s identification of the defendant, the witness cannot testify about the identification unless it was “confirmatory,” I.e., based on knowing the defendant. Here the judge should not have found the identification confirmatory based on the witness’s trial testimony. A midtrial Rodriguez hearing should have been held. The matter was remitted.

 

, ,

THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF PROMOTING A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE OF A CHILD AND IMPROPERLY CROSS-EXAMINED THE DEFENDANT IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED, THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction after trial and dismissing the indictment (without prejudice), determined the prosecutor did not properly instruct the grand jury on the law and improperly cross-examined the defendant in the grand jury proceedings:

… [T]he prosecutor failed to instruct the grand jury, pursuant to the holding in People v Kent (19 NY3d 290 [2012]), that some “affirmative act” is required to prove the crime, and that “viewing computer images of a sexual performance by a child on a computer does not by itself constitute promotion of such images” (CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 263.15). Although it is well established that a grand jury “need not be instructed with the same degree of precision that is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law” … , we conclude under the circumstances of this case that the deficiencies in the prosecutor’s charge impaired the integrity of the grand jury proceeding and gave rise to the possibility of prejudice. We further conclude that the potential for prejudice was increased by the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant during the grand jury presentation in a manner that was “calculated to unfairly create a distinct implication that [defendant] was lying” … . People v Congdon, 2023 NY Slip Op 01622, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: The grand jury should have been instructed that some affirmative act in addition to simply viewing child pornography of a computer is required for the offense of promoting the sexual performance of a child.

Practice Point: The prosecutor increased the prejudice resulting from the improper instruction on the law by improperly cross-examining the defendant in the grand jury proceeding to imply that the defendant was lying.

Practice Point: Even though the defendant was properly convicted at trial, the flaws in the grand jury proceeding required dismissal of the indictment.

 

,

AS CHARGED IN THIS CASE, CRIMINAL TRESPASS THIRD IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY THIRD AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO INSTRUCTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s criminal trespass third conviction, determined the judge should not have instructed the jury on that offense as a lesser included offense of burglary third degree:

“To establish that a count is a lesser included offense in accordance with CPL 1.20 (37), a [party] must establish ‘that it is theoretically impossible to commit the greater crime without at the same time committing the lesser’ ” … . As charged here, “[a] person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property (a) which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders” (Penal Law § 140.10 [a]). The plain language of that statute “clearly requires that both buildings and real property be fenced or otherwise enclosed in order to increase the level of culpability from trespass . . . to criminal trespass in the third degree” … . Inasmuch as that requirement is not an element of burglary in the third degree (see § 140.20), it is theoretically possible to commit burglary in the third degree without committing criminal trespass in the third degree under section 140.10 (a), and thus “a violation of that section cannot qualify as a lesser included offense of third-degree burglary” … . People v Newman, 2023 NY Slip Op 01621, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: As charged in this case, trespass third is not a lesser included offense of burglary third.

 

, ,

​ A WAIVER OF APPEAL NOT MENTIONED UNTIL SENTENCING IN INVALID; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DECISION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REDACT STATEMENTS MADE WITHOUT COUNSEL FROM THE PREPLEA INVESTIGATION REPORT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, determined (1) the waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because the waiver was not mentioned until sentencing, after defendant pled guilty, and (2) the judge never decided defendant’s request to have certain statements, made without counsel, redacted from the preplea investigation report:

A waiver of the right to appeal is not effective where, as here, it is not mentioned until sentencing, after defendant pleaded guilty … . …

Defendant … contends that Supreme Court erred in failing to redact from the preplea investigation report statements that defendant made during the preplea investigation interview, because those statements were made without the presence of counsel. … [D]efendant preserved the issue for our review by moving to redact the statements from the preplea investigation report … . The court stated that it was reserving decision, but there is no indication in the record that the court ever issued a decision. It is well settled that a court’s failure to rule on a motion cannot be deemed a denial thereof . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine defendant’s motion.  People v Wallace, 2023 NY Slip Op 01616, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: A waiver of appeal not mentioned until sentencing is invalid.

Practice Point: When a judge fails to decide a motion, here a motion to redact statements from the preplea investigation report, the appellate court cannot consider the motion to have been denied and must remit for a decision.

 

,

THE PLEA-BARGAINED SENTENCE WAS BELOW THE STATUTORY MINIMUM, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING OR WITHDRAWAL OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

​The Fourth Department remitted the matter for resentencing because the sentence imposed was below the statutory minimum:

… [T]he sentence promised to defendant as part of his guilty plea and imposed upon him at sentencing, i.e., 8 years to life imprisonment, is illegal because it fell below the statutory minimum (see Penal Law §§ 70.08 [3] [b]; 265.03). Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, the remedy at this stage is not to vacate his guilty plea, but to remit the matter to County Court … . On remittal, the court will have the discretion to either, if possible, ” ‘resentence defendant in a manner that ensures that he receives the benefit of his sentencing bargain or permit both parties the opportunity to withdraw from the agreement’ ” … . People v Mcdowell, 2023 NY Slip Op 01606, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: Here the plea-bargained sentence was below the statutory minimum. The matter was remitted for resentencing (if possible) or withdrawal of the plea agreement.

 

, ,

THE IMPOSITION OF TWO CONSECUTIVE PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined consecutive periods of post release supervision should not have been imposed. Although the issue was not raised on appeal, an appellate court cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand:

… [T]he court erred in imposing consecutive periods of postrelease supervision. Penal Law § 70.45 (5) (c) requires that when a person is subject to two or more periods of postrelease supervision, those periods merge with and are satisfied by the service of the period having the longest unexpired time to run … . Because we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand … , we modify the judgment accordingly…. . People v Koeberle, 2023 NY Slip Op 01605, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: Here the imposition of two consecutive periods of postrelease supervision was illegal. The issue was not raised on appeal, but an appellate court cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE’S SANDOVAL APPLICATION WAS DISCUSSED IN CHAMBERS AND THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT THE JUDGE’S SUBSEQUENTLY ASKING, IN OPEN COURT AND IN THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, WHETHER THE DEFENSE WANTED TO BE HEARD ON THE APPLICATION WAS SUFFICIENT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that. although a discussion of the People’s Sandoval application was held in chambers when the defendant was not present, there was subsequent open-court proceeding in the defendant’s presence in which the judge offered the defense the opportunity to be heard on the application. The dissent argued the decision on the People’s application was made in chambers and the defendant was not given a meaningly opportunity to participate in a Sandoval hearing:

Defendant contends that he was denied his right to be present at a material stage of the trial when Supreme Court conducted anin-chambers and off-the-record conference in his absence at which there was discussion regarding the People’s previously submitted, written Sandoval application … . We reject that contention. Although defendant was not present at the in-chambers conference, the court held a subsequent proceeding in open court in defendant’s presence, at which the court offered defendant an opportunity to be heard on the People’s application. Defense counsel declined. The court then made, and explained, its ruling on the People’s application. Under those circumstances, we conclude that defendant was afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate at the court’s subsequent de novo inquiry and his absence from the initial conference does not require reversal … . People v Sharp, 2023 NY Slip Op 01602, Fourth Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: A Sandoval hearing is a material stage of a criminal proceeding at which the defendant must be present. Here the Sandoval application was discussed in chambers when the defendant was not present. Subsequently, in open court, in the defendant’s presence, the judge asked defense whether it wanted to be heard on the application and counsel declined. The majority held the defendant was given a meaningful opportunity to participate. The dissent disagreed.

 

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