You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

WHERE DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS INNOCENCE AT TRIAL, HAS A PENDING APPEAL AND ASSERTS HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE SORA PROCEEDING, THE SORA COURT SHOULD NOT ASSESS POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 12 FOR FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt, reversing the SORA court, in a matter of first impression, determined that where defendant asserted his innocence at trial, has a pending appeal, and has asserted his right to avoid self-incrimination, he should not be assessed points under risk factor 12 for failing to take responsibility for the relevant offense:

… [W]e conclude that a defendant who has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and has a direct appeal pending should not be assessed points under risk factor 12. Considering this conclusion, and in view of defendant’s consistent refusal to incriminate himself and the pending status of his direct appeal, the assessment of 10 points under this factor amounts to a violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. * * *

… [D]efendant was forced to choose between, on the one hand, exercising his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and being assessed points under risk factor 12, and, on the other, admitting responsibility for the acts that led to his conviction after so far maintaining his innocence and risking that those admissions would be used against him in a potential retrial or form the basis of a perjury charge. Ultimately, the penalty imposed on defendant when presented with this choice is that he was assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 and adjudicated a risk level two sex offender.

The difference between a level one and level two sex offender adjudication is substantial and illustrative of why the penalty is so great as to compel self-incrimination. If defendant were classified as a level one sex offender, he would be required to register annually for a period of 20 years from the date of initial registration (see Correction Law § 168-h), but his personal information would not be listed in a publicly available database. However, as a level two sex offender, defendant would be required to register annually for life (see Correction Law § 168-h), and his photograph, address, place of employment, physical description, age, and distinctive markings would be included in a public database (see Correction Law § 168-q). People v Krull. 2022 NY Slip Op 04783, First Dept 8-2-22

Practice Point: Here defendant asserted his innocence at trial, had a pending appeal and asserted his right against self-incrimination in the SORA proceedings. The SORA court should not have assessed points under risk factor 12 for failure to take responsibility for the offense.

 

,

THE PEOPLE WERE CHARGED WITH THE DELAY IN RESPONDING TO DEFENDANT’S OMNIBUS MOTION ENTITLING DEFENDANT TO RELEASE ON BAIL PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s habeas corpus petition seeking release on bail based upon the speedy-trial statute should have been sustained:

When making a motion pursuant to CPL 30.30(2)(a) to be released on bail or his or her own recognizance, a defendant who has been committed to the custody of the sheriff has the initial burden of demonstrating, by sworn allegations of fact, that there has been an inexcusable delay beyond the time set forth in the statute … . Once a defendant has alleged that more than the statutorily prescribed time has elapsed without a declaration of readiness by the People, the People bear the burden of establishing sufficient excludable delay … . The burden is on the People “to ensure, in the first instance, that the record of the proceedings . . . is sufficiently clear to enable the court considering the . . . CPL 30.30 motion to make an informed decision as to whether the People should be charged” with any delay … .

… [T]he petitioner adequately raised before the Supreme Court the issue of whether the People should be charged with their delay in responding to the defendant’s omnibus motion. … [B]ecause the People did not seek and receive an extension of time to respond to the omnibus motion, or provide any explanation for the delayed response, they are “chargeable with the time between the court-imposed deadline to respond to the omnibus motion and the date on which the People actually filed a response” … . Here, the 13 days chargeable to the People due to their unexplained delay in responding to the omnibus motion, when coupled with the 86 days between the date of arraignment and the date upon which the People filed their certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL 245.50, totals more than 90 days … . People v Molina, 2022 NY Slip Op 04778, Second Dept 7-29-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff had been incarcerated for more than the 90 days allowed by CPL 30.30 and the 13-day delay occasioned by the People’s failure to timely respond to defendant’s omnibus motion was not adequately explained. Therefore defendant’s habeas corpus petition was sustained and he was entitled to release on bail which he is capable of meeting or on his own recognizance.

 

, ,

PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER’S APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF HIS HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WAS MOOT BECAUSE APPROPRIATE HOUSING HAD BEEN FOUND WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT CONSIDERED THE APPEAL UNDER THE EXCEPTION-TO-THE-MOOTNESS-DOCTRINE AND REITERATED THAT WHEN A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER HAS COMPLETED HIS MAXIMUM PRISON TIME AND SUITABLE HOUSING IS NOT AVAILABLE, HE MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY (RTF) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, finding the appeal from the denial of petitioner’s habeas corpus petitioner moot, over a dissent, considered the appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine. The Third Department held that when a level three sex offender has completed his maximum prison time, and Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA) compliant housing cannot be found, the inmate must be placed in a residential treatment facility (RTF) to await housing. Here, while the appeal was pending, proper housing was found for petitioner. The dissent argued there was nothing novel about the case and invoking the exception-to-the-mootness-doctrine to hear the appeal was not necessary:

This Court has previously held, and we reiterate, that “when a risk level three sex offender reaches his or her maximum expiration date, [the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision] must release the individual to either an approved residence or to an [appropriate] RTF” … . People ex rel. Jones v Collado, 2022 NY Slip Op 04768, Second Dept 7-28-22

Practice Point: Here the appeal from the denial of petitioner-sex-offender’s habeas corpus petition was moot because appropriate post-release housing had been found. The Third Department considered the appeal pursuant to the exception-to-the-mootness-doctrine to reiterate that when a level three sex offender has completed his maximum prison time he must be placed in SARA compliant housing or, or if housing is not available, in a residential treatment facility (RTF).

 

BURGLARY SECOND IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department vacated the burglary second conviction as an inclusory concurrent count of burglary second as a sexually motivated felony:

The People correctly concede that the defendant’s conviction of burglary in the second degree and the sentence imposed thereon, must be vacated, and that count of the indictment dismissed, as it is an inclusory concurrent count of burglary in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony … . People v Hay, 2022 NY Slip Op 04737, Second Dept 7-27-22

Practice Point: Burglary second is an inclusory concurrent count of burglary second as a sexually motivated felony.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS SPEEDING AT THE TIME HE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR, WENT DOWN AN EMBANKMENT AND STRUCK A TREE, KILLING A PASSENGER, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “DANGEROUS SPEEDING;” THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE AND RECKLESS DRIVING CHARGES; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s criminally negligent homicide conviction in this traffic accident case, determined the evidence was not legally sufficient. Although the issue was not preserved, it was considered in the interest of justice. Defendant attempted to exit a highway at 74 miles per hour where the ramp speed limit was 45 miles per hour and the highway speed limit was 65 miles per hour. Defendant lost control, went down an embankment, and hit a tree. A passenger was killed:

… [T]he evidence was legally insufficient to establish “the kind of seriously condemnatory behavior” … in addition to speeding that is necessary to “transform ‘speeding’ into ‘dangerous speeding'” … . The People’s evidence established only that the defendant attempted to navigate the curved profile of the exit ramp at an excessive speed, and was late in attempting corrective measures by manually steering the wheel. While this conduct reflected poor judgment in the defendant’s operation of his vehicle given the roadway environment … , it failed to establish that the defendant engaged in “some additional affirmative act aside from driving faster than the posted speed limit,” as required to support a finding of criminal negligence or recklessness … . Accordingly, we vacate the convictions of criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving … . People v Cardona, 2022 NY Slip Op 04733, Second Dept 7-27-22

Practice Point: Defendant was speeding (74 miles per hour on an exit ramp) when he lost control of the car and struck a tree, killing a passenger. The evidence did not demonstrate “dangerous speeding.” Therefore the criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence.

 

IN A PARTIAL CONCURRENCE/PARTIAL DISSENT TWO JUSTICES WOULD HAVE REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE TO TIME SERVED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S LIFE-EXPECTANCY AFTER REMOVAL OF A BRAIN TUMOR IS TWO TO THREE YEARS, THE DEFENDANT’S AGE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE (18), AND THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM THE ROOM WHERE THE VICTIM WAS STABBED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined County Court properly declined to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender and properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on the ground he was suffering from the effects of an undiagnosed brain tumor at the time he pled guilty. The dissenters would have reduced defendant’s sentence because defendant was 18 at the time of the robbery/murder, the shotgun he possessed was unloaded, and he was not in the room when the victim was stabbed. The neurosurgeon testified that, although defendant’s tumor had been removed and he was in remission, the cancer could return and the five-year survival rate is 36%:

From the partial concurrence and partial dissent:

With what was known at the time of the plea and sentencing, we agree with the majority that Supreme Court acted within its discretion by imposing the negotiated sentence, without according defendant youthful offender status. On the record presented, we further agree that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s CPL 440.10 (1) (e) motion.

That said, under the unusual circumstances of this case, we would reduce the sentence in the interest of justice. Without minimizing defendant’s actual role in the criminal incident, two facts warrant particular attention. The shotgun that defendant utilized was unloaded and defendant was not in the victim’s room when the stabbing took place. Defendant, who was 18 years old at the time of the incident, underwent a significant medical procedure in January 2014 to remove a malignant tumor from his brain. Defendant’s neurosurgeon explained that the tumor was a “very aggressive form of brain cancer” and averred that the “[u]sual median survival with such a tumor is customarily 2.3 years,” with two- and five-year survival rates of 64% and 36% respectively. As of June 2020, the neurosurgeon indicated that defendant was in remission, but noted that the tumor could recur. He further observed that defendant “is fortunate that he has not succumbed to his tumor.” Given this prognosis, and considering that defendant has been incarcerated since 2013, we would exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to modify the sentence from 12 years to time served … . People v McGill, 2022 NY Slip Op 04762, Third Dept 7-28-22

Practice Point: County Court properly declined to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender and properly denied his motion to vacate his robbery conviction. Two justices, however, argued the defendant’s brain tumor and 2-to-3-year life-expectancy warranted reducing defendant’s sentence to time served in the interest of justice.

 

FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE SPECIFIC OR MAXIMUM PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the plea was not voluntary because defendant was not informed of the specific or maximum period of postrelease supervision to which defendant would be sentenced:

“To meet due process requirements, a defendant must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action [and,] [w]ithout such procedures, vacatur of the plea is required” … . “It is not enough for a court to generally inform a defendant that a term of postrelease supervision will be imposed as a part of the sentence” … .. “Rather, for a plea of guilty to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the court must inform the defendant of either the specific period of postrelease supervision that will be imposed or, at the least, the maximum potential duration of postrelease supervision that may be imposed” … . People v Wolfe, 2022 NY Slip Op 04745, Second Dept 7-27-22

Practice Point: Failure to inform the defendant of the specific or maximum period of postrelease supervision aspect of the sentence rendered the guilty plea involuntary.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE THE COMPLAINANT SUFFERED “SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY” FROM MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; CONVICTIONS REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT, ASSAULT AND ROBBERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reduced defendant’s convictions to attempted gang assault first, attempted assault first, attempted robbery first and attempted assault second because the proof the complainant suffered “serious physical injury” was lacking:

… [W]e find that the evidence was not legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt on these counts. Although the complainant was stabbed multiple times, there was no evidence of serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ … .

However, the evidence at trial established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the intent to inflict serious physical injury and came “dangerously near” to committing the completed crimes … . People v Mayancela, 2022 NY Slip Op 04741, Second Dept 7-27-22

Practice Point: Here, although the complainant was stabbed multiple times, the wounds did not damage any organs and were treated with sutures. Therefore the proof the complainant suffered “serious physical injury” was legally insufficient. The convictions were reduced to attempted gang assault, assault and robbery.

 

HERE DEFENDANT SET A FIRE TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE AND WAS CONVICTED OF ARSON AND TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE; BECAUSE BOTH CHARGES AROSE FROM A SINGLE ACT, THE SENTENCES MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the sentences for arson and tampering with evidence arose from a single act and, therefore, the sentences must run concurrently. Defendant had participated in tying her disabled child to a bed. When defendant returned home, the child had died. To conceal the evidence, defendant participated in setting the home on fire. Under these circumstances, the arson and tampering with evidence charges arose from a single act:

… County Court should not have imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment upon defendant’s convictions of arson in the third degree and tampering with physical evidence. … “Sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively where, among other things, a single act constitutes two offenses” … . Given that the fire admittedly was set to conceal evidence, the arson and tampering with physical evidence convictions necessarily arose from a single act. As a result, although the terms of imprisonment imposed upon such convictions properly ran consecutively to the sentence imposed upon defendant’s conviction of manslaughter in the first degree … , the sentences imposed upon the arson and tampering convictions must run concurrently with one another … , and defendant’s sentence is modified to that extent. People v Franklin, 2022 NY Slip Op 04677, Third Dept 7-21-22

Practice Point: The defendant set a fire to conceal evidence and was charged with and convicted of arson and tampering with evidence. Because both convictions arose from a single act, the sentences must run concurrently.

 

, , ,

ON REMAND FROM THE US SUPREME COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WAS HARMLESS ERROR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, on remand from the US Supreme Court, determined the evidentiary error was harmless and affirmed defendant’s conviction. The defendant was convicted of murder. The plea allocution of Morris, who was initially prosecuted for the same murder (but exonerated by DNA evidence). was allowed in evidence in defendant’s trial, a violation of defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. The Court of Appeals held the evidence against defendant was overwhelming rendering the violation of defendant’s right of confrontation harmless:

… “[T]here is no reasonable possibility” that the erroneously admitted plea allocution “might have contributed to defendant’s conviction” (People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]). The plea allocution neither exculpated Morris nor inculpated defendant as the shooter, thus allowing defendant to argue to the jury that Morris was the perpetrator. Indeed, it merely supported a conclusion that Morris possessed a .357 magnum revolver on the day in question, and [a witness] had already testified to that alleged fact. … [T]he prosecutor’s reliance on the plea was exceedingly minimal. Under these circumstances and in light of the other, overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, the error below was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” (id. at 237, citing Chapman v California , 386 US 18 [1967]). People v Hemphill, 2022 NY Slip Op 04663, CtApp 7-21-22

Practice Point: It is worth remembering that even a constitutional error, here the violation of defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him, is subject to a harmless-error analysis.

 

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