You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITIONS WERE TIMELY FILED; THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the juvenile delinquency petitions were timely fifed because of the COVOD toll imposed by the Executive Orders:

By Executive Order No. 8.202.8, issued on March 20, 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the “time limit[s] for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state” were “tolled” … . “A toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and the period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the relevant time period” … . However, a suspension “simply delays expiration of the time period until the end date of the suspension” … . By its plain terms, Executive Order 8.202.8 tolled the statute of limitations … , until that order and subsequent Executive Orders extending the tolling period were rescinded by Executive Order 8.210, issued on June 24, 2021 and effective the next day … .

Since the period of the toll must be excluded from the calculation of the filing deadline … , the juvenile delinquency petitions were timely filed on July 2,2021. Respondent allegedly committed his first unlawful act on December 21, 2019. Normally, the filing deadline for the petitions would have been respondent’s 18th birthday — June 7, 2021, which was 534 days after he allegedly committed the first act. When the first executive order took effect on March 20, 2020, there were 444 days remaining before respondent’s 18th birthday. By adding 444 days to June 24, 2021, when the executive order’s tolling provisions were terminated, the Agency’s deadline for filing the petitions was August 25, 2022. Here, the Agency refiled and served the second set of petitions on July 2, 2021, only eight days after the executive orders were rescinded.

The order rescinding the prior Executive Orders meant that the statute of limitations would start running again, “picking up where it left off” … . We also note that Family Court’s narrow interpretation of the Executive Order would deprive respondent of the benefits of Family Court intervention … . Matter of Isaiah H., 2023 NY Slip Op 01587, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: Here the COVID toll of the statute of limitations rendered the filing of the juvenile delinquency petitions timely. The correct application of the toll was explained.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND PREJUDICE ISSUES IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE GUILTY PLEA; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court and recalling and vacating a prior appellate decision, determined defendant sufficiently raised ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudice in his motion to vacate his conviction on the ground he was not informed of the possibility of deportation before entering a guilty plea. The motion should not have been denied without a hearing:

Defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction based on Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 [2010]), which held that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. In light of the affidavits from defendant, defendant’s plea counsel (indicating no recollection or notation that he discussed immigration consequences with defendant), and his sister, as well as motion counsel’s representation that plea counsel admitted in an interview that he was not well-versed in immigration law, defendant presented sufficient evidence that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, such that a hearing was warranted if a sufficient showing was similarly raised as to prejudice.

Regarding whether defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient performance, we also find that defendant’s submissions are sufficient to warrant a hearing. Given the length of time defendant has resided in the United States, his ties to the United States, his lack of ties to the Dominican Republic, and his employment history, defendant demonstrated a reasonable possibility that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and instead proceeded to trial … . People v Guzman-Caba, 2023 NY Slip Op 01593, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: Here the motion to vacate the conviction sufficiently raised ineffective assistance and prejudice issues which warranted a hearing. The defendant presented evidence he was not informed he could be deported based on his guilty plea and demonstrated he was prejudiced by the failure. The judge should have ordered a hearing.

 

,

DNA EVIDENCE RECOVERED AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER POINTED TO THE VICTIM’S BOYFRIEND AS THE PERPETRATOR; BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WAS A SINGLE IDENTIFICATION WITNESS WHO WAS 88 YEARS OLD AND HAD POOR VISION, THE DNA EVIDENCE MAY HAVE LED TO A MORE FAVORABLE VERDICT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the DNA evidence (from under the victim’s fingernails) procured after the trial may have resulted in a verdict more favorable to the defendant. Defendant was identified as the perpetrator by an 88-year-old witness who had poor vision. The DNA recovered from the victim was that of the victim’s boyfriend. There was no other evidence tying defendant to the scene:

… [T]he defense theory at trial was one of mistaken identity. The defendant posited that the perpetrator was actually Samuels’s [the victim’s] boyfriend, Jermaine Robinson. No physical evidence linked the defendant to the crime. The only identity evidence offered by the People at trial was the testimony of a single eyewitness, Marchon, who was 88 years old at the time of the incident and suffered from significantly impaired vision. Marchon’s description to the police of the perpetrator’s appearance was not conclusive and was, in part, more consistent with Jermaine Robinson’s appearance. Under the facts of the case, it would not have been unreasonable to conclude that Marchon confused Samuels’s estranged husband with her current boyfriend in making her identification to the police. Marchon also was not able to conclusively identify the defendant at trial. Moreover, various members of the defendant’s family provided alibi evidence for his whereabouts on the day of the attack. Finally, two Allen charges … were required before the jury was able to reach a verdict.

Under all of these circumstances, while not a “virtual certainty,” there existed a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant had the DNA evidence been admitted at trial … . People v Robinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01533, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: Here in this murder case DNA evidence discovered after the trial pointed to a different perpetrator and the single eyewitness was 88 years old and had poor vision. Had the DNA evidence been admitted at trial the verdict may have been more favorable to defendant. New trial ordered.

 

BECAUSE THE OFFENSE TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY (ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON THIRD) WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ANY OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, IT IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS A VIOLENT FELONY; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second violent felony offender. Defendant pled guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon third, which was not a lesser included offense of any of the offenses charged in the indictment. Therefore the attempted criminal possession of a weapon third can not be classified as a violent felony:

Penal Law § 70.02 defines a class E violent felony offense, in pertinent part, as “an attempt to commit any of the felonies of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree as defined in subdivision five, six, seven or eight of section 265.02 as a lesser included offense of that section as defined in section 220.20 of the criminal procedure law” … in turn defines a ‘lesser included offense’ as one where the defendant pleads ‘to an offense of lesser grade than one charged in a count of an indictment'” … . Thus, a plea of guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree “constitutes a violent felony offense only when the defendant has been initially charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and pleads guilty to the attempted crime as a lesser included offense” … . Here, the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree as an added count to the indictment, which did not charge him with the completed crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should not have sentenced the defendant as a violent felony offender … . People v Nyack, 2023 NY Slip Op 01532, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: Here defendant pled guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon third. Because that offense was not a lesser included offense of any offense charged in the indictment, it is not classified as a violent felony. Therefore defendant should not have been sentenced as a second violent felony offender.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE THE GUILTY PLEA MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HIS IMMIGRATION STATUS HE WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY INFORMED DEPORTATION WAS POSSIBLE; MATTER SENT BACK TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant was not informed of the possibility of deportation before entering the guilty plea, although defendant was aware the plea may have a negative impact on his immigration status.. The issue need not be preserved for appeal. The matter was sent back to afford defendant the opportunity to move to vacate the plea:

At the plea proceeding, the court questioned the defendant as to whether he had discussed with defense counsel “the possible negative impact on [his] immigration status as a result of [his] pleas of guilt.” The defendant replied: “Yes. I did explain to him that I was concerned about that.” The court then inquired whether the defendant had “an opportunity to discuss these pleas and their impact on [his] immigration status with an immigration attorney.” In response, the defendant indicated that he had discussed the matter with an immigration attorney, who had informed him of the “possibility” that he would lose “TPS [Temporary Protected Status].” The court did not advise the defendant of the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the guilty plea. People v Hernandez, 2023 NY Slip Op 01530, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: Here the negative impact of the guilty plea on defendant’s immigration status was discussed prior to his entering the plea, but the possibility of deportation was not specifically addressed. The defendant was given the opportunity to move to vacate the plea. Under the facts, preservation was not required.

 

,

FORMER SISTERS-IN-LAW WHO LIVED ONE MILE APART AND SAW EACH OTHER FREQUENTLY FOR 30 YEARS HAD AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” WHICH SUPPORTED THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the long-term relationship (as sisters-in-law) qualified as an “intimate relationship” which supports a family offense proceeding:

For purposes of Family Court Act article 8, “members of the same family or household” is defined to include “persons related by consanguinity or affinity,” and “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … …

… [T]he petitioner demonstrated that the parties had been in an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e), so as to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the court. Beyond expressly excluding from the definition of “intimate relationship” a “casual acquaintance” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts” … , “the Legislature left it to the courts to determine, on a case-by-case basis, what qualifies as an ‘intimate relationship’ within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e)” … . Factors to consider include “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” … .

… [T]he petitioner demonstrated that the parties had known each other for more than 30 years, that they had a close relationship as sisters-in-law for most of this period, during which they lived within one mile of one another, frequently had dinner together, engaged in social activities in each other’s homes, attended most holiday celebrations together, supported each other during times of devastating family illnesses, and assisted each other with their respective children … . Matter of Eno v Illovsky, 2023 NY Slip Op 01506, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: A family offense proceeding can be brought in Family Court only if there was an “intimate relationship” between petitioner and respondent. Here petitioner and respondent had been sisters-in-law for 30 years. lived a mile apart and had seen each other frequently. Their relationship was an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of the Family L

​ THE MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION WAS BASED ON THE POLICE OFFICER’S UNEXPLAINED CONCLUSION THE DOCUMENT WAS FORGED AND DID NOT ALLEGE FACTS TO SUPPORT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE; CONVICTION REVERSED AND INFORMATION DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the conviction and dismissing the misdemeanor information, determined the factual allegations in the information were not sufficient to provide notice of the charged offense. The information relied on the police officer’s conclusory statement that the document was forged:

Where … an allegation “involves a conclusion drawn by a police officer that involves the exercise of professional skill or experience, some explanation concerning the basis for that conclusion must be evident from the accusatory instrument” … .

… [T]he information failed to include sufficient factual allegations regarding the basis for the officer’s conclusion that the “Texas buy tag” was forged. Mere reliance on “his training in the detection and identification of forged instruments” is insufficient. Although the officer made reference to the use of “Z-finest,” he did not explain what “Z-finest” is or how it helped him determine that the tag was forged. Further, he did not explain or describe the Texas “buy tag.” These allegations are too conclusory to meet the prima facie case requirement on the issue of whether the buy tag was a forgery … .

… [E]ven assuming that the information sufficiently alleged that the buy tag was a forgery, the information failed to provide sufficient factual allegations to “establish a presumption that [the] defendant had knowledge of the forged nature of the instrument” … . People v Rodriguez, 2023 NY Slip Op 01535, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: A misdemeanor information must include factual allegations which support every element of the charged offense. Here the police officer’s unexplained conclusion the document was forged was insufficient. In addition the element requiring knowledge the document was forged was not addressed by the factual allegations. The conviction was reversed and the information dismissed.

 

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192(2) (DWI) IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192(2-A) (AGGRAVATED DWI) (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department noted that driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192(2) is a lesser included offense of aggravated driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192 (2-a):

… [D]riving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2) is a lesser included offense of aggravated driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2-a) (see CPL 300.30[4] … ). A verdict of guilt upon the greater count is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count (see CPL 300.40[3]). Accordingly, we vacate the conviction of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2) and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismiss that count of the indictment … .  People v Watson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01538, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192(2) (DWI) is a lesser included offense of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192(2-a) (aggravated DWI).

 

,

EVEN WHERE A SENTENCE HAS BEEN AGREED TO BY THE DEFENDANT AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN, AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE SENTENCE IS UNDULY HARSH OR SEVERE, SEPARATE AND APART FROM WHETHER THE SENTENCE IS LEGAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in two concurring opinions, determined the matter should be sent back to the Appellate Term for consideration of defendant’s argument his plea-bargained sentence (a $500 fine) was unduly harsh or severe. An appellate court’s power to reduce an unduly harsh or severe sentence can be applied, even when the sentence was part of a plea bargain:

The Appellate Term concluded that there was “no basis for reducing the fine” … . Although the Court was not required to go further and set forth the basis for its conclusion (see CPL 470.25 [1] …), here, it did so, reasoning that “[d]efendant received the precise sentence for which he had bargained, which was within the permissible statutory range” …  . In other words, the sentence was legal and bargained-for. Certainly, the Appellate Term cannot be faulted for considering and addressing the legality of the sentence because the intermediate appellate courts “cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand” … . However, the legality of the sentence was irrelevant to the entirely separate issue of whether it was unduly harsh or severe … , and it was improper for the Appellate Term to treat the bargained-for nature of defendant’s sentence as dispositive of his challenge to the severity of the sentence. People v Ba, 2023 NY Slip Op 01468, CtApp 3-21-23

Practice Point: An intermediate appellate court is constrained to consider whether a sentence is unduly harsh or severe, even where the sentence was agreed to by the defendant as part of a plea bargain.

 

,

THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN APPLYING THE WRONG STANDARD TO THE REDUCTION OF A SENTENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE FOR DECADES; HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HAS RECENTLY STOPPED APPLYING THE WRONG STANDARD, THIS APPEAL IS MOOT (CT APP),

The Court of Appeals determined the sentencing issue raised by the defendant (Baldwin) was moot. Judge Wilson, in a concurring opinion, explained that the standard applied by the Third Department for reduction of a sentence in the interest of justice is incorrect:

The question presented on this appeal is whether, for the past several decades, the Third Department has imposed an erroneous legal standard on criminal defendants seeking a reduction of their sentences in the interest of justice. Mr. Baldwin points to countless Third Department cases, including his own, in which the Third Department employed a test requiring a showing of extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion for it to exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction to modify a sentence. Relying on the statutory language empowering the Appellate Division to reduce “unduly harsh or severe” sentences in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [6] [b]), Mr. Baldwin contends that the Third Department’s test constitutes an incorrect legal standard.

Mr. Baldwin argues that the Third Department’s requirement that a defendant show a clear abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances is contrary to both our case law and the practices of the other Appellate Division departments. In People v Delgado, we emphasized that the Appellate Division’s “broad, plenary power to modify a sentence may be exercised, if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentencing court” (80 NY2d 780, 780 [1992]). Mr. Baldwin contends that the Third Department’s standard is an outlier: it is used by no other department, and has been expressly rejected by the Fourth Department (see eg People v Thomas, 194 AD3d 1405, 1406 [4th Dept 2021] [“We are compelled to emphasize once again that, contrary to the People’s assertion, a criminal defendant need not show extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court in order to obtain a sentence reduction under CPL 470.15 (6) (b)”] [internal quotations omitted]).

Here, however, as Mr. Baldwin himself points out, the issue is not likely to recur. The Third Department, to its great credit, apparently noticed the pendency of this appeal and the issue it raised, after which it corrected its longstanding use of the wrong standard, making repetition of the error unlikely … . People v Baldwin, 2023 NY Slip Op 01467, CtApp 3-21-23

Practice Point: The Third Department had been using the wrong standard for the reduction of a sentence in the interest of justice for decades but has recently corrected the problem, rendering this appeal moot.

 

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