You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

​ 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.

 

, ,

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.

 

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