You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES WERE NOT RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE SENTENCES EITHER BECAUSE THE CONCURRENT SENTENCES WERE ILLEGAL OR BECAUSE THE GUILTY PLEAS WERE INDUCED BY THE PROMISE OF ILLEGAL CONCURRENT SENTENCES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, raising issues not raised in the appeals, determined the concurrent sentences imposed by the judge had to be vacated because the judge did not put the reasons for the concurrent sentences on the record. All the sentences were vacated because the guilty pleas were induced by a promise of illegal concurrent sentences:

… [D]efendant committed the crimes to which he pleaded guilty in appeal Nos. 2 and 3 while released on recognizance for the charge to which he pleaded guilty in appeal No. 1, and defendant also committed the crime to which he pleaded guilty in appeal No. 2 while released on recognizance for the charge to which he pleaded guilty in appeal No. 3. Thus, in the absence of a statement of the facts and circumstances warranting concurrent sentences set forth on the record, the court was required to direct that the felony sentences run consecutively (see § 70.25 [2-b] …). …

A court may, in the interest of justice, impose a concurrent sentence for a conviction of assault in the second degree under Penal Law § 120.05 (7), provided that the court sets forth in the record its reasons for imposing a concurrent sentence (see Penal Law § 70.25 [5] [c] …) … [T]he court imposed a concurrent sentence without setting forth its reason on the record.

… [B]ecause defendant’s guilty pleas in appeal Nos. 1 through 5 were all induced by the promise of illegal concurrent sentencing, we must also vacate the sentence imposed in appeal No. 4, and in each of the five appeals we remit the matter to County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to either withdraw his guilty plea or be resentenced in compliance with Penal Law § 70.25 (2-b) and (5) … . People v Horton, 2022 NY Slip Op 04501, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Sentences for crimes committed when defendant has been released on his own recognizance can not be concurrent unless the judge puts the relevant facts and reasoning on the record. The same goes for assault second. Here the reasons for the concurrent sentences were not put on the record, rendering the concurrent sentences illegal. Because all the guilty pleas were induced by the promise of concurrent sentences, all the sentences were vacated. The “illegal concurrent sentences” issue had not been brought up on appeal.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT SECOND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s assault second conviction to attempted assault second, determined the proof o physical injury was not legally sufficient:

… [T]he evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he caused physical injury to the victim by means of a dangerous instrument and thus that the conviction of assault in the second degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence … . The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People … , establishes that defendant attempted to stab the victim and the two struggled over the knife; however, the victim suffered no more than minor cuts to her hands that did not require bandaging and caused only transient pain … . … [T]he evidence is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of the lesser included offense of attempted assault in the second degree … . People v Lopez-Sarmiento,2022 NY Slip Op 04493, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Here the evidence the victim suffered “physical injury” as defined in the Penal Law was deemed legally insufficient. The assault second conviction was reduced to attempted assault second.

 

,

GIVEN WHAT THE INFORMANT TOLD THE POLICE, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT GRABBED AT HIS WAISTBAND WHEN THE POLICE APPROACHED HIM ON THE STREET PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION THE DEFENDANT HAD A WEAPON AND THEREBY JUSTIFIED PURSUIT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE INFORMATION FROM THE INFORMANT WAS NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFDENDANT GRABBED AT HIS WAISTBAND BEFORE OR AFTER THE CHASE STARTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police had “reasonable suspicion” to pursue defendant as he fled when the police approached on the street. The defendant discarded a handgun as he fled:

… [P]olice responded to a 911 call that a parolee wanted on an outstanding warrant and who was known to possess guns was a passenger in a certain vehicle. The officers found a vehicle matching the description given by the 911 caller and followed it, losing sight of the vehicle momentarily but then spotting it stopped on a curb with the passenger standing outside the vehicle. As one of the officers exited the police vehicle and began to approach the passenger, the passenger ran away while holding the left side of his waistband and the officer chased after him. …

The court properly determined that the officers had at least an objective, credible reason to approach defendant and request information … . Defendant’s subsequent flight with his hand on his waistband from the approaching officer, combined with the 911 caller’s report about a wanted violent parolee who was potentially armed, and the police officers’ observations confirming the vehicle and suspect descriptions from the 911 call, provided the officers with reasonable suspicion to pursue defendant … .

From the dissent:

The People assert that the court properly determined that the pursuit was justified because, in addition to the information provided by the informant, the arresting officer observed defendant grabbing the front of his pants while running away, as if he had a gun in his waistband. Although defendant’s act of grabbing his waistband increased the degree of suspicion, perhaps even to the level required for pursuit, the evidence at the suppression hearing does not establish whether the arresting officer observed that conduct before or after he gave chase. People v Leonard, 2022 NY Slip Op 04468, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Coupled with information provided from an informant claiming the defendant had guns and was violent, the defendant’s grabbing at his waistband as the police approached him on the street provided the police with reasonable suspicion the defendant had a weapon, thereby justifying police pursuit when defendant fled. The dissent argued the information from the informant did not provide reasonable suspicion and the People did not prove defendant grabbed at his waistband before he fled.

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THE TEMPORAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF 20 POINTS FOR RISK FACTOR 4 AND DEFENSE COUNSEL AGREED WITH THAT 20-POINT ASSESSMENT, THEREBY WAIVING ANY OBJECTION TO IT ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; NEW SORA HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the SORA risk level assessment, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing. The People did not present evidence of defendant’s commission of two or more sexual offenses separated by more than 24 hours or three or more over at least two weeks to justify the relevant 20 point assessment (risk factor 4). Defense counsel agreed to that 20 point assessment. Defense counsel contested a different assessment but that argument was deemed to have no merit. Defendant’s counsel was deemed ineffective and a new SORA hearing was ordered:

… [T]he sole argument advanced by the defendant’s assigned counsel, challenging the assessment of points under risk factor 9, was clearly devoid of merit. Counsel then expressly conceded that the points in all other categories had been properly assessed, even though there was at least a colorable argument to be made that the People had failed to establish that the temporal requirements for the assessment of points under risk factor 4 were satisfied …  Contrary to the People’s contention, it cannot be said that such an argument would have had little or no chance of success. Although the case summary established that the defendant committed multiple offending acts, it did not contain any information as to when these acts occurred relative to each other, and therefore, standing alone, was insufficient to support the assessment of 20 points under risk factor 4 … . Moreover, counsel’s argument regarding risk factor 9, and other statements made by counsel during the hearing, indicated that counsel was not adequately familiar with the applicable law … . In addition, counsel stated that he was seeking a downward departure, but failed to articulate any argument in support of such a departure … . People v Echols, 2022 NY Slip Op 04310, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: At the SORA risk-level hearing, defense counsel agreed with an assessment of 20 points for risk level 4 despite the People’s failure to submit any evidence in support of it. Because counsel agreed to the assessment, any objection to it was waived and could not be raised on appeal. However, the ineffective-assistance argument, based upon defense counsel’s failure to object to that same 20 point assessment, was properly raised on appeal and was the basis for reversal.

 

, ,

THE CJA FORM WAS PUT IN EVIDENCE TO PROVE WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED, WHICH WAS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL-POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CHARGE; BUT THE CJA EMPLOYEE WHO TESTIFIED WAS NOT THE EMPLOYEE WHO CREATED THE DOCUMENT; BECAUSE THE CJA EMPLOYEE COULD NOT BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE DOCUMENT, ITS ADMISSION VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) form which indicated defendant lived where the weapon (the subject of the criminal-possession-of-a-weapon charge) was found constituted testimonial evidence which violated the Confrontation Clause. The witness through whom the form was admitted in evidence did not create the form and, therefore, could not be cross-examined about its contents:

… [T]he testimony of the CJA employee and the CJA form were admitted in order to establish an essential element of the charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, in violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation … . The defendant was never given the opportunity to cross-examine the CJA employee who prepared the CJA form, and, in admitting the CJA form through an employee who did not prepare the form, the Supreme Court failed to ensure that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was protected … . People v Franklin, 2022 NY Slip Op 04308, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here a document was admitted into evidence to prove where defendant lived, which was an element of the criminal-possession-of-a-weapon charge. Because the person who created the document did not testify and therefore could not be cross-examined about its contents, defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him was violated. New trial ordered.

 

,

THE POLICE WERE “ACTING IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE FUNCTION” WHEN THEY SEARCHED THE INJURED DEFENDANT AND FOUND A CARTRIDGE; DEFENDANT WAS DRIFTING IN AND OUT OF CONSCIOUSNESS; THE POLICE PROPERLY SEARCHED HIS POCKETS FOR IDENTIFICATION; SUPPRESSION DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the search of plaintiff’s clothing by the police did not require suppression of the cartridge found in defendant’s pocket because the police were “acting in the public service function” in aiding the injured defendant:

… [T]he hearing court … denied suppression of a cartridge recovered from defendant’s pants pocket, correctly finding that “the police were acting in their public service function in rendering aid when searching the defendant’s clothing for identification.” When police arrived, defendant was lying on the ground and screaming that he had been shot. He appeared to have been shot in the leg, he was drifting in and out of consciousness, and he could not state his name. At that point, the officers were treating defendant as an injured victim rather than a suspect, and were not performing a law enforcement function … . Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to believe defendant needed immediate assistance and to search his pants for identification as they waited for him to be transported to the hospital …  In performing this public service function, it was reasonable for the police to ascertain the identity of the person they were aiding and to supply that information to medical personnel, and defendant did not appear capable of communicating his identity. People v Hatchett, 2022 NY Slip Op 04282, First Dept 7-5-22

Practice Point: When the police aid an injured person and search the person’s pockets for identification, they are “acting in the public service function.” Suppression of any contraband found in the search will be denied.

 

THE ONE COUNT INDICTMENT WAS RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AND WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL; THE APPELLATE COURT NOTED THAT EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN NARROWED AT TRIAL, DISMISSAL WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE PRETRIAL NOTICE OF THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the one count indictment was rendered duplicitous by the bill of particulars. The court noted that, even if the scope of the evidence had been narrowed at trial, reversal still would have been necessary because defendant did not have pretrial notice of the charges:

Because the sole count of the indictment charged only one offense, as required by CPL 200.30 (1) … , the indictment on its face was not duplicitous. It is well settled, however, that indictments charging one offense per count can be rendered duplicitous by, among other things, a bill of particulars alleging more than one offense per count … . Here, the bill of particulars alleged that defendant engaged in two separate and distinct acts of nonconsensual sexual intercourse with the victim. The second such act allegedly occurred more than three hours after the first act. Thus, while the indictment charged only one criminal act, the jury heard evidence at trial of two criminal acts, with no specification from the court or the prosecutor as to which act they were to consider when rendering a verdict.

Even if the trial evidence narrowed the scope of defendant’s allegedly illegal conduct, and here it did not, that “is irrelevant. Defendant was entitled to pretrial notice of the charges so that he would be able to adequately prepare a defense” … . People v Baek, 2022 NY Slip Op 04263, Fourth Dept 7-1-22

Practice Point: Here the one count indictment was rendered duplicitous by the bill of particulars which alleged two sexual acts. Even if the evidence had been narrowed at trial, reversal still would have been necessary because defendant did not have pretrial notice of the charges.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN THAT COUNSEL’S EXPLANATION OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE GUILTY PLEA WAS WRONG; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER THERE IS A REASONABLE POSSIBILITIY DEFENDANT WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN PROPERLY INFORMED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant demonstrated his attorney gave him the wrong advice about the chances he would be deported based on his guilty plea and sent the matter back for hearing on whether the is a reasonable possibility defendant would not have pled guilty if he had been properly informed:

In support of [defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction], defendant’s attorney on the motion averred that defense counsel had given advice that was consistent with an assumption that the crime that defendant was pleading guilty to was a crime of moral turpitude within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), for which an immigration judge could grant a cancellation of removal, when in actuality defendant was pleading guilty to an aggravated felony under the INA that would almost certainly result in deportation…. . People v Go, 2022 NY Slip Op 04258, Fourth Dept 7-1-22

Practice Point: Defendant moved to vacate his conviction by guilty plea on ineffective assistance grounds. Defendant demonstrated that his attorney’s explanation of the immigration consequences of the plea was wrong. Therefore County Court should have held a hearing on whether there is a reasonable possibility defendant would not have pled guilty had he been correctly informed.

 

, ,

THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION WAS NOT PROVEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH UNPRESERVED THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the determination of the amount of restitution and remitted for a hearing. The error was not preserved and was considered in the interest of justice. The court further noted that the recipient of the restitution was not put on the record:

… [T]he People failed to establish the victim’s actual out-of-pocket loss by a preponderance of the evidence. The restitution amount ordered by the court deviated from the loss claimed by the restaurant manager in his testimony, and the sole evidence supporting the actual amount of out-of-pocket loss calculated by the court was an undetailed, vague letter ostensibly from the restaurant franchisee’s insurer listing an amount of loss—the calculation and accuracy of which was, by their own representation at the hearing, unknown to the People … . People v Piasta, 2022 NY Slip Op 04243, Fourth Dept 7-1-22

Practice Point: Here the amount of restitution was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The recipient of the restitution was not identified on the record. Although the errors were not preserved, they were considered in the interest of  justice. The matter was remitted for a hearing.

 

,

THE MAJORITY HELD THAT THE SIX-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN WHEN THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE DNA EVIDENCE LINKING DEFENDANT TO THE RAPE AND DEFENDANT’S ARREST DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant was not entitled to reversal of the rape conviction based on the six-year preindictment delay. The dissenter would have reversed, finding the delay deprived defendant of due process:

In determining whether defendant was deprived of due process, we must consider the factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442 [1975]), which are: “(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay” … . * * *

There is no indication that the “delay was caused by any bad faith on the part of the People” … . Instead, the delay was largely caused by the efforts of the People and law enforcement “to acquire substantial corroborating evidence in order to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” … . Nevertheless, it is true, as defendant points out, that extensive periods of delay may fairly be attributed to neglect by the People and law enforcement in the investigation. But even assuming, arguendo, that [this] factor weighs in defendant’s favor, three of the five factors favor the People, and we thus conclude that the court did not err in denying that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to dismiss the indictment on due process grounds.

From the dissent:

The People … failed to present a valid reason for the delay … . As of September 2006, when the prosecution was made aware of DNA evidence linking defendant to the crime, the prosecutor possessed all information necessary to charge defendant, and the record reveals no reason, plan, or deliberate decision to delay defendant’s arrest until it was eventually made in January 2013. Instead, the record reflects that the explanation for the over six-year delay was simply inadvertence, which is an insufficient reason as a matter of law … . People v Stefanovich, 2022 NY Slip Op 04241, Fourth Dept 7-1-22

Practice Point: There was a six-year delay between when the People became aware of DNA evidence linking defendant to the crime and defendant’s arrest. The majority held the delay did not deny defendant of due process. The dissenter argued the People demonstrated only that the delay was the result of “inadvertence,” which is an insufficient reason.

 

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