You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY ESSENTIALLY FAILED TO TAKE ANY POSITION ON THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new SORA hearing, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel:

“A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a right to the effective assistance of counsel” … . Here, the defendant’s counsel failed to provide “meaningful representation” … , as he “failed to litigate any aspect of the adjudication” … , essentially declining to take any position on the matter. People v Motta, 2023 NY Slip Op 01908, Second Dept, 4-12-23

Practice Point: A defense attorney who fails to take a position in the SORA risk-assessment proceedings does not provide effective assistance of counsel.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS BASED SOLELY ON A SODA CAN WITH HIS DNA ON IT; THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined the burglary conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

The verdict convicting defendant of a burglary of a doctor’s office that occurred in July 2015 was against the weight of the evidence … . Defendant was connected to this burglary solely through the presence of his DNA on an opened soda can in the reception area. The office manager’s testimony failed to address whether there was any innocent explanation for the presence of defendant, or of the soda can, at that location. … . People v Taylor, 2023 NY Slip Op 01848, First Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Defendant was convicted of the burglary of a doctor’s office based solely on the presence of a soda can with his DNA on it in the reception area. The testimony did not address whether there was an innocent explanation for the presence of the soda can. The conviction was against the weight of the evidence.

 

,

WHEN DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN 2002 HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) AND HE DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA IN 2010 WHEN PRS WAS ADDED TO HIS SENTENCE; DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CONTEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 2002 CONVICTION RE: A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER DESIGNATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been allowed to contest the constitutionality of his 2002 conviction because he was not informed of the period of post release supervision (PRS) before he pled guilty. Defendant’s failure to move to withdraw the 2002 plea when he was resentenced in 2010 to add PRS to his sentence did not waive his right to claim prejudice in a challenge to the constitutionality of a predicate felony:

At the persistent violent felony offender proceeding in this case, defendant claimed that he would have gone to trial in the 2002 case had he known that PRS would ultimately be a consequence of his plea … . The sentencing court conducted a hearing on this claim, which included defendant’s testimony. After the hearing, the court expressly declined to rule on this claim of prejudice. Instead, the court ruled that defendant was barred from making such a challenge because he declined an opportunity to withdraw his 2002 plea when he was resentenced in 2010. However, that opportunity, offered when defendant had only weeks left to serve on the 8½ year sentence imposed in 2002, would not have provided a remedy for the constitutional defect that defendant is claiming, which is that he would not have pleaded guilty in 2002 had he known of the ultimate PRS component of his sentence. Accordingly, we find that defendant’s 2010 failure to withdraw the 2002 plea did not waive his right to claim prejudice in the context of a challenge to the constitutionality of a predicate felony, and we remand for a ruling on that claim. People v Graham, 2023 NY Slip Op 01852, First Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Defendant was not informed of the period of post release supervision (PRS) when he pled guilty in 2002 and did not move to withdraw his plea when PRS was added in 2010. Defendant did not waive his right to attack the constitutionality of the 2002 conviction in this persistent felony offender proceeding.

 

, ,

BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY IS NOT AN ENUMERATED OFFENSE UNDER SORA, THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant was not required to register as a sex offender because the offense to which he pled guilty, burglary as a sexually motivated felony, is not one of offenses to which SORA applies. In addition, the Third Department held defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid:

… [W]e agree with the analysis of our colleagues in the First and Second Departments concluding that registerable offenses subject to SORA are, by application of the clear statutory text, limited to those crimes expressly identified as “[s]ex offense[s]” pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a (2) … . As burglary in the third degree as a sexually motivated felony is not among the offenses enumerated therein, we agree that defendant was improperly required to register as a sex offender pursuant to SORA … . …

During the plea colloquy, County Court did not explain that certain appellate rights would survive the waiver of appeal and instead improperly described the rights to be waived as encompassing “any argument” that defendant might take to a higher court … . The written waiver, in turn, states that “[i]t is [defendant’s] understanding and intention that [his] plea agreement and sentence will be a complete and final disposition of this case.” Although the written appeal waiver also includes qualifying language limiting its application “to all legal issues that can be waived under the law[,]” and the court confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel … , we find that the “totality of the circumstances” presented here fails to confirm that defendant understood that some appellate review would survive the waiver … . People v Winter, 2023 NY Slip Op 01820, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: A defendant may not be required to register as a sex offender if convicted of a crime not listed in the Correction Law. Burglary as a sexually motivated felony is not listed.

Practice Point: The failure to inform the defendant that, despite the waiver of appeal, certain issues remain appealable, renders the waiver of appeal invalid.

 

THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the superior court information, noted the record did not indicate the waiver of indictment was signed in open court, which is a jurisdictional defect:

A defendant “may waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney” provided that “such waiver shall be evidenced by written instrument signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or her counsel” … . Although the record reflects that defendant orally agreed to waive indictment in open court and contains a written waiver of indictment bearing the date of that appearance, which defendant and defense counsel acknowledged signing, the minutes do not demonstrate that defendant signed the waiver in open court, as constitutionally mandated. “Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved for review by a motion to withdraw the plea” … . Moreover, neither the written waiver of indictment, to which the District Attorney executed consent … , nor County Court’s undated order approving the waiver, indicates that the waiver was signed in open court … . In light of this jurisdictional defect, defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated and the superior court information must be dismissed …. People v Camlin, 2023 NY Slip Op 01821, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: If the record does indicate the waiver of indictment was signed in open court, the superior court information will be dismissed.

 

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.

 

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