You are here: / Criminal Law

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.

 

, , ,

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THIS FIRST DEGREE MURDER (MURDER-FOR-HIRE) TRIAL WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW; IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO FAIL TO SO INSTRUCT THE JURY; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, IT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED SILENCE IN RESPONSE TO AN ACCUSATION (ADOPTIVE ADMISSION) WAS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT HEARD THE ACCUSATION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder-first-degree conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the jury should have been instructed that the defendant’s paramour, Lovell, who was involved the plot to have the victim killed by a third-party, and who testified against the defendant at trial, was an accomplice as a matter of law. Despite defense counsel’s failure to preserve the error, the issue was considered on appeal in the interest of justice. The Second Department also held that the “adoptive admission” by the defendant should not have been admitted in evidence. It was alleged the defendant remained silent when her mother-in-law accused her of killing the victim. The People did not prove defendant actually heard the accusation:

Supreme Court failed to instruct the jury that Lovell was an accomplice and subject to the statutory corroboration requirement. Although the court was “under a duty to charge . . . even without a request from the defendant … , the rule of preservation requires that defense counsel object to the court’s failure in order to preserve a question of law for appellate review … . Notwithstanding defense counsel’s failure to object at trial, under the circumstances of this case, we reach the unpreserved error in the interest of justice and find that the failure to properly instruct the jury constituted reversible error … …. [T]he evidence of the defendant’s guilt, which consisted principally of Lovell’s testimony, was not overwhelming … . * * *

“To use a defendant’s silence or evasive response as evidence against the defendant, the People must demonstrate that the defendant heard and understood the assertion, and reasonably would have been expected to deny it” … . Here, the People failed to establish that the defendant actually heard the mother-in-law’s accusations or that the defendant had an opportunity to respond to the accusations prior to the mother-in-law disconnecting the phone call. Therefore, the court should not have admitted the evidence. People v Noel, 2022 NY Slip Op 04647, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: The testimony of defendant’s paramour, who was involved in the murder-for-hire, was the principal evidence against the defendant. The failure to instruct the jury that the paramour was an accomplice as a matter of law whose testimony must be corroborated was reversible error. Although the error was not preserved the Second Department considered it ion appeal in the interest of justice. The defendant’s silence in the face of an accusation (an adoptive admission) should not have been admitted in evidence because the People did not prove the defendant heard the accusation.

 

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE VACATION OF THE SENTENCE FOR THE MURDER OF HIS FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to the vacation of his sentence for the murder of his father’s girlfriend pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). Defendant was 19 at the time of the killing of his father and his father’s girlfriend, with whom he resided. supreme Court had granted defendant’s motion with regard to the manslaughter conviction for the killing of his father, but denied the motion with regard to the murder conviction for the killing of his father’s girlfriend. The facts are not discussed, but the Second Department found that the facts supported the vacation of the sentence for the murder of father’s girlfriend:

The DVSJA permits courts to impose reduced alternative, less severe, sentences in certain cases involving defendants who are victims of domestic violence … .. The DVSJA sets forth three factors for a court to consider, namely: (1) whether the defendant was a victim of domestic violence inflicted by a member of the same family or household at the time of the offense; (2) whether the abuse was a significant contributing factor to the defendant’s criminal behavior; and (3) whether, having regard for the nature and circumstances of the crime and the history, character, and condition of the defendant, a sentence in accordance with the customary statutory sentencing guidelines would be unduly harsh (see Penal Law § 60.12). The preponderance of the evidence standard applies … . The DVSJA permits the court to impose a less punitive and less harsh sentence without diminishing the seriousness of the offense or finding the crime to have been justified … . People v Burns, 2022 NY Slip Op 04638, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: Here defendant was 19 when he killed his father and his father’s girlfriend. Based on the facts, which were not discussed, the Second Department determined the sentences should be vacated and defendant should be resentenced pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act.

 

THE FEDERAL POSSESSION-OF-A-FIREARM-BY-A-FELON STATUTE IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY BECAUSE THE FEDERAL STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE A SHOWING THE WEAPON WAS OPERABLE; DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s second felony offender adjudication, determined the federal possession-of-a-firearm-by-a-felon statute is not the equivalent of a New York felony:

… [T]he defendant should not have been adjudicated a second felony offender on the basis of a prior federal conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon (see 18 USC § 922[g][1]). “An out-of-state felony conviction qualifies as a predicate felony under New York’s sentencing statutes only if it is for a crime ‘whose elements are equivalent to those of a New York felony'” (… see Penal Law § 70.06[1][b][i]). Here, the defendant’s predicate crime does not require as one of its elements that the firearm be operable … and thus, does not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing … . People v Bilfulco, 2022 NY Slip Op 04637, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: The federal possession-of-a-weapon statute (18 USC 922[g][1]) is not the equivalent of a New York felony because it does not require that the weapon be operable. Therefore that federal statute cannot be the basis for a second felony offender adjudication.

 

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