You are here: / APPEALS

Tag Archive for: APPEALS

Failure to Inform Defendant of the Period of Postrelease Supervision Required Reversal in the Absence of an Objection

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s conviction must be reversed because he was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision (PRS) at the time of the plea, and he could not be expected to object because he was not informed of the PRS until the end of the sentencing hearing:

…[D]efendant was not required to preserve for our review his challenge to the imposition of PRS under these circumstances. “A defendant cannot be expected to object to a constitutional deprivation of which [he] is unaware . . . [W]here the defendant was only notified of the PRS term at the end of the sentencing hearing, the defendant can hardly be expected to move to withdraw [the] plea on a ground of which [he or she] has no knowledge’ . . . And, in that circumstance, the failure to seek to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment does not preclude appellate review of the due process claim” … . Furthermore, “[b]ecause a defendant pleading guilty to a determinate sentence must be aware of the [PRS] component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action, the failure of a court to advise of postrelease supervision requires reversal of the conviction” (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245). “[T]he record does not make clear, as required by Catu, that at the time defendant took his plea, he was aware that the terms of the court’s promised sentence included a period of PRS” because only the term of incarceration of 20 years was stated on the record … . While a term of PRS was mentioned earlier in the plea negotiations, it is undisputed that there was no mention of PRS at the plea proceeding and, based on our review of the record, we conclude that defendant was not “advised of what the sentence would be, including its PRS term, at the outset of the sentencing proceeding” … . People v Rives, 2015 NY Slip Op 02316, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

Appeal Waiver Did Not Encompass Youthful Offender Status/Defendant Should Have Been Adjudicated a Youthful Offender

The Fourth Department determined the defendant did not waive his right to appeal the court’s failure to adjudicate him a youthful offender and further determined defendant should be so adjudicated:

… [T]he waiver [of appeal] does not encompass defendant’s contention regarding the denial of his request for youthful offender status, inasmuch as “[n]o mention of youthful offender status was made before defendant waived his right to appeal during the plea colloquy” … .

We agree with defendant that he should have been afforded youthful offender status. Defendant was 16 years old at the time of the offense and committed the offense when he and his two friends were walking to a park, saw a vehicle with the keys in the ignition, and wondered what it would be like to steal the vehicle. Defendant expressed remorse for his actions, which we conclude were the actions of an impulsive youth rather than a hardened criminal (see People v Drayton, 39 NY2d 580, 584, rearg denied 39 NY2d 1058). Thus, under the circumstances, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by adjudicating defendant a youthful offender … . People v Angel T.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 02296, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

Failure to Transcribe Portion of Voir Dire Not Reversible Error—Criteria Explained

The Third Department determined the failure to transcribe a portion of the voir dire did not require reversal (because the defendant did not request that it be transcribed and could show no prejudice).  The court explained the relevant analysis:

“Although we agree that verbatim recordation of the trial proceedings is the better practice, unless waived, the case law makes clear that the absence of a stenographic record does not, per se, require reversal of a defendant’s conviction” … . “‘Rather, a defendant must show that a request was made that the voir dire proceedings be recorded, the request was denied, and the failure to record the proceedings prejudiced him or her in some manner'” … . Here, voir dire was recorded, except one portion during which each counsel exercised peremptory challenges to the first panel of jurors. However, defendant did not request that this part (or any part) of voir dire be recorded … and, importantly, he does not assert that an incorrect ruling or any prejudicial error occurred during the omitted portion … . People v Chappelle, 2015 NY Slip Op 105486, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

“Attempted Felony Assault” Charge Jurisdictionally Defective

The Third Department determined the “attempted felony assault” charge in the indictment was jurisdictionally defective because there can be no attempt to commit a crime which makes the causing of a certain result criminal even though wholly unintended:

We do find that the conviction for attempted assault in the first degree cannot stand. Defendant was charged under the theory that, during the course of the kidnapping, he attempted to cause serious physical injury when he choked the victim a second time after she made an abortive effort to get help (see Penal Law § 120.10 [4]). An attempt to commit a crime requires that a person, “with intent to commit a crime, . . . engages in conduct which tends to effect the commission of such crime” (Penal Law § 110.00). In contrast, felony assault punishes a felon for the actual consequences of his or her actions, and “there can be no attempt to commit a crime which makes the causing of a certain result criminal even though wholly unintended” … . Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that defendant did not advance this specific issue in his appellate brief, the count of the indictment charging him with attempted felony assault is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed … . People v Mccann, 2015 NY Slip Op 01830, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

,

Proof at Trial Did Not Sufficiently Pinpoint Time of the Alleged Sexual Offenses—Convictions Vacated

The Second Department determined the proof at trial did not sufficiently pinpoint the time of the alleged sexual offenses.  The offenses were alleged at trial to have been committed within a four-year time period for one victim and within a one-year time period for another.  The related convictions were vacated:

Here, numerous counts of the consolidated indictment charged various acts of criminal sexual act (see Penal Law § 130.45[1]) and sexual abuse (see Penal Law §§ 130.55, 130.60), which involved several single acts. These acts spanned a time period of at least four years with respect to Gabrielle, and approximately one year with respect to Angela. In an effort to specify a time period that was not unreasonably excessive, the District Attorney drafted the indictment to divide these time periods mostly into two-month intervals. Although the indictment, on its face, may have been sufficient, the trial testimony revealed that the complainants lacked any ability “to particularize the date and time of the alleged . . . offense[s]” …, and that there was no real basis in fact for the intervals alleged with respect to these counts … . Thus, “[t]he mere fact that the District Attorney artfully drafted the indictment by arbitrarily dividing” those otherwise excessive time periods into two-month intervals despite the absence of any basis in fact, “cannot detract from the conclusion that the time periods” with respect to these single-act crimes “were unreasonable” under the circumstances here … . Under the circumstances of this case, despite the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for appellate review, we reach the issue in the interest of justice, and we vacate the defendant’s convictions of criminal sexual act in the second degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, and sexual abuse in the third degree … . People v Atta, 2015 NY Slip Op 01809, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

Failure to Make a Finding of Necessity Re: Restraining Defendant at Trial with a Stun Belt Is Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—Error Must Be Preserved by Objection (No Objection Here)

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court’s failure to make a finding of necessity re: the defendant’s wearing a stun belt (a restraint device) at trial was not a mode of proceedings error.  Therefore the error must be preserved by objection.  Here the defendant consented to the restraint.  People v Cooke, 2015 NY Slip Op 01557, CtApp 2-24-15

 

,

Under the Facts, the Judge’s Failure to Mention the Imposition of Post-Release Supervision as Part of the Sentence at the Time of the Plea Was an Error that Must Be Preserved by Objection (No Objection Made)

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined that defendant, under the facts, was precluded from raising the judge’s failure to inform defendant at the time of defendant’s plea that post-release supervision (PRS) would be part of defendant’s sentence because the error was not preserved by objection.  Here defendant and/or defendant’s counsel had been informed of the imposition of PRS both before and after the plea:

In People v Catu [4 NY3d 242], this Court held that “the trial court has the constitutional duty to ensure that a defendant, before pleading guilty, has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences” … . A court is not required to engage in any particular litany when allocuting a defendant, but the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant … . We found that “[p]ostrelease supervision is significant” and that a defendant “must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntary and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action” … .

Defendant claims that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent under Catu because County Court failed to reiterate the term of PRS during the plea colloquy. We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, defendant was required to preserve his claim.

Defendant and his attorney had three opportunities to object to the imposition of PRS: at the initial scheduled sentencing July 15, at his sentencing on July 28, and at the appearance on August 17. Neither defendant nor defense counsel expressed any objection to the imposition of PRS. Because defendant had ample opportunity to raise an objection to the PRS component prior to and during these proceedings, defendant was required to preserve his claim … . People v Crowder, 2015 NY Sip Op 01481, CtApp 2-17-15

 

, ,

Failure to Inform Defendant of His Right to Counsel for an Appeal Taken by the People Deprived Defendant of that Right

The Second Department determined that a defendant must be informed of his right to counsel on an appeal taken by the People:

A defendant has important interests at stake on an appeal by the People, and is thus entitled to certain protections, including “the right to appellate counsel of defendant’s choice and the right to seek appointment of counsel upon proof of indigency” … . “The ultimate duty of informing the defendant of his right to have counsel on appeal rests with the State” … and, absent record evidence that the defendant was informed of the right to counsel and waived that right, the Appellate Division should not proceed to consider and decide an appeal by the People … . Since there is no such record evidence in this case, we agree with the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel on the People’s appeal to this Court … . Accordingly, we assign counsel to represent the defendant on the People’s appeal …, and will consider and decide the remainder of the application upon the submission of all briefs. People v Clemente, 2015 NY Slip Op 01287, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

,

Larceny Jury Instruction Shifted Burden of Proof to Defendant—Reversal Required In Absence of Preservation of the Error

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the jury instruction shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:

Penal Law § 155.15 (1) provides that, “[i]n any prosecution for larceny committed by trespassory taking or embezzlement, it is an affirmative defense that the property was appropriated under a claim of right made in good faith.” …[H]owever, the Court of Appeals in People v Chesler (50 NY2d 203, 209-210) “held that section 155.15 was unconstitutional insofar as it made a good-faith claim of right an affirmative defense because to do so impermissibly shifted the burden onto the defendant to disprove the element of intent.” Rather, “a good faith claim of right is properly a defense–—not an affirmative defense—–and thus, the [P]eople have the burden of disproving such defense beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” … . Here, however, the court instructed the jury that “defendant has the burden of proving that she took, withheld or obtained the property under a claim of right made in good faith by a preponderance of the evidence.” We conclude that the court committed a mode of proceedings error when it shifted the burden onto defendant to disprove the element of intent …, thereby requiring reversal of the judgment and a new trial even in the absence of preservation … . People v Forbes-Haas, 2015 NY Slip Op 00092, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Where Proof Is Directed Exclusively to a Theory Not Charged in the Indictment, the Proof Is Insufficient to Support the Conviction—Such a Variance Need Not Be Preserved by Objection to Be Raised on Appeal/Conduct of Spectators (Mouthing Words When Victim Testified) Did Not Require that the Spectators Be Removed and Did Not Mandate the Declaration of a Mistrial

The Fourth Department determined that variance between the charges described in the indictment and the proof at trial required the dismissal of several counts.  Such a variance does not need to be preserved for appeal by objection.  The court noted that the trial judge’s failure to exclude spectators who were mouthing word’s during the victim’s testimony was not an abuse of discretion:

“Where the charge against a defendant is limited either by a bill of particulars or the indictment itself, the defendant has a fundamental and nonwaivable’ right to be tried only on the crimes charged” … . We have thus held that, where, as here, a defendant contends that he or she has been convicted upon an uncharged theory of the crime, such a contention does not require preservation… . * * *

“Where there is a variance between the proof and the indictment, and where the proof is directed exclusively to a new theory rather than the theory charged in the indictment, the proof is deemed insufficient to support the conviction” … . Counts two and three of the indictment alleged hand-to-vagina contact, but the victim testified that the only part of defendant’s body that came into contact with her vagina was defendant’s penis. Indeed, when asked specifically if any other part of defendant’s body came into contact with her vagina during the incident encompassed by counts two and three, the victim responded, “No.” Count nine of the indictment alleged penis-to-vagina contact, but the victim testified that defendant touched her vagina with his hand during that incident. Again, when asked specifically if any other part of defendant’s body came into contact with her vagina during the incident encompassed by count nine, the victim responded, “No.” We thus conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction with respect to counts two, three and nine and that defendant was denied his fundamental and nonwaivable right to be tried on only those crimes charged in the indictment. We therefore modify the judgment accordingly.  People v Duell, 2015 NY Slip Op 00014, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

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