You are here: / APPEALS

Tag Archive for: APPEALS

Conviction on a Lesser Inclusory Count Can Not Stand Even In the Absence of Preservation

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree could not stand because that charge was a lesser inclusory count of another count of which the defendant was convicted (criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree):

Although defendant failed to preserve this contention for our review, the People … correctly concede that “we may review the issue as a matter of law despite defendant’s failure to raise it in the trial court” … . People v Roberts, 2014 NY Slip Op 06707, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

, ,

Hearing Ordered to Reconstruct Contents of Missing Recording of 911 Call

The Fourth Department would not reverse defendant’s conviction due to the post-trial loss of the recording of a 911 call, the contents of which were important on appeal.  Instead, the court ordered a reconstruction hearing to create a record of the contents of the call.  People v Thomas, 2014 NY Slip Op 06710, 10-3-14

 

,

Court’s Failure to Inquire to Ensure Guilty Plea Was Knowing and Voluntary Required Vacation of the Plea (In the Absence of Preservation)

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court’s failure make an inquiry to determine whether defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary required reversal (in absence of preservation).  The defendant stated during the plea colloquy that the weapon he used was a BB gun, not a handgun.  Defense counsel explicitly waived any related affirmative defense:

At the outset of the plea colloquy, defense counsel stated that, although defendant told the police that he used a .45 caliber handgun in the robbery, the weapon he had used was actually a BB gun. Defense counsel further stated, however, that defendant would waive the affirmative defense set forth in Penal Law § 160.15 (4), which applies where the weapon used in the robbery “was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, could be discharged.” During the ensuing plea colloquy, defendant stated that the gun he had used was a BB gun that looked like a revolver, not a .45 caliber handgun as he had told the police. At the end of the plea colloquy, defense counsel, in response to concerns expressed by the prosecutor, again stated that defendant was waiving the affirmative defense set forth in section 160.15 (4). The court then accepted defendant’s plea.

Although “no catechism is required in connection with the acceptance of a plea” …, it is well established that, “where the defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea, . . . the trial court has a duty to inquire further to ensure that [the] defendant’s guilty plea is knowing and voluntary” … . “Where the court fails in this duty and accepts the plea without further inquiry, the defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the allocution on direct appeal,” despite having failed to make that challenge in a “postallocution motion” directed to the plea court … . People v Dukes, 2014 NY Slip Op 06454, 4th Dept 9-26-14

 

,

Clause in Appeal-Waiver Agreement Which Purported to Vacate Plea and Sentence Upon the Filing of a Notice of Appeal Unenforceable

The First Department determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was not adequately explained by the sentencing court and further determined a clause in the waiver agreement is unenforceable.  The Clause purported to vacate the plea and sentence if a notice of appeal is filed:

,,,[W]e agree with defendant that the clause in the waiver agreement that purportedly treats the filing of a notice of appeal by defendant as a motion to vacate the judgment to be unenforceable. Specifically, the waiver form included the following clause:

“If the defendant or the defendant’s attorney files a notice of appeal that is not limited by a statement to the effect that the appeal is solely with respect to a constitutional speedy trial claim or legality of the sentence, they agree that the District Attorney and or Court may deemed such filing to be a motion by the defendant to vacate the conviction and sentence, and will result, upon the application and consent of the District Attorney, in the plea and sentence being vacated and this indictment being restored to its pre-pleading status.”

This clause is unenforceable because there is no statutory authority to vacate a judgment under these circumstances (CPL 440.10,,,).

Further, this language discourages defendants from filing notices of appeal even when they have claims that cannot be waived, such as one concerning the lawfulness of the waiver or the plea agreement itself. “[A]n agreement to waive appeal does not foreclose appellate review in all situations” … . If the agreement to waive were itself sufficient to foreclose appellate review, “the court would then be deprived of the very jurisdictional predicate it needs as a vehicle for reviewing the issues that survive the waiver” … . The language in the written waiver, in essence, purports to prevent appellate claims that have been found by the courts to be “unwaivable” precisely because of their constitutional import … . People v Santiago 2014 NY Slip Op 05493, 1st Dept 7-24-14

 

, ,

Defendant’s Actions In Driving Under the Influence and Causing a Collision Did Not Support Convictions for Offenses Requiring Proof of a Depraved Indifference to Human Life

The Second Department determined that there was insufficient proof of “depraved indifference” to support defendant’s convictions for first degree assault and reckless endangerment stemming from a collision with a vehicle driven by Petrone:

Depraved indifference is ” best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life—a willingness to act not because one intends harm, but because one simply doesn’t care whether grievous harm results or not'” … . It is embodied in conduct that is ” so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so devoid of regard of the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes [serious physical injury to] another'” … .

The issue of whether a defendant possessed a state of mind evincing depraved indifference to human life is highly fact-sensitive, requiring a case-by-case analysis … . Here, the prosecution’s witnesses established that the defendant’s vehicle, without braking, collided into the back of Petrone’s vehicle while both were traveling eastbound in the left lane on Northern Boulevard. The collision was of such force that both vehicles left the roadway and flipped over. Moreover, the testimony of the forensic toxicologist demonstrated that, at the time of the accident, the defendant was significantly impaired due to his ingestion of six different drugs, including methadone. Nevertheless, the evidence of the defendant’s conduct did not support a finding of depraved indifference. The defendant was not driving well in excess of the speed limit, he was not driving the wrong way into oncoming traffic, he had not failed to obey traffic signals, and there was no evidence that he was driving erratically prior to the collision … . Under these factual circumstances, the prosecution failed to establish that the defendant possessed an “utter disregard for the value of human life” or that he “simply [did not] care whether grievous harm result[ed] or not” from his actions … . Consequently, there is simply no “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could lead a rational person to the conclusion” … that the defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life when he caused the injuries to Petrone… . People v Jakobson, 2014 NY Slip Op 05354. 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

Alleged Error Did Not Raise a Question of Jurisdiction or Constitute a Constitutional Defect—Therefore the Alleged Error Did Not Survive the Guilty Plea

The Third Department described the types of fundamental errors which survive a guilty plea. The prosecutor’s alleged failure to inform the grand jury of defendant’s request to call witnesses in not one of them:

By his plea of guilty, defendant forfeited this argument. “As a rule, a defendant who in open court admits guilt of an offense charged may not later seek review of claims relating to the deprivation of rights that took place before the plea was entered” … . As relevant here, a claim “that the District Attorney did not inform the grand jury of defendant’s request to call witnesses to testify on his behalf as required by CPL 190.50 (6) . . . does not activate a question of jurisdiction or constitute a constitutional defect and, thus, does not survive a guilty plea” … . People v McCommons, 2014 NY Slip Op 05215, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

,

Proof of “Physical Injury” Was Legally Insufficient

The Second Department determined the “physical injury” element of robbery in the second degree had not been proven:

“Physical injury” is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). The subject complainant testified that he sustained an injury to his left ring finger after he was attacked from behind and fell to the ground. The complainant went to the hospital after the incident, where his bruised finger was bandaged and placed in a splint, but X rays revealed no broken bones and there was no evidence presented that he was prescribed pain medication. A “bruise” was still present four years after the incident, but the complainant only testified generally that he felt pain on his hand and arms immediately after the incident, and he did not testify that the injury limited or diminished his ability to use his finger for any length of time. Under these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the complainant suffered substantial pain or impairment of physical condition … . People v Boney, 2014 NY Slip Op 05197, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

, ,

Conditioning Plea Offer Upon Withdrawal of a Constitutional Speedy Trial Motion Is an Inherently Coercive Mode of Proceedings Error

The Third Department determined that the People’s conditioning of a plea bargain on the defendant’s withdrawal of his constitutional speedy trial motion was a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal:

…[T]he Court of Appeals has recently cited to People v Blakley (34 NY2d at 315) as an example of the “mode of proceedings” exception to the preservation rule (People v Hanley, 20 NY3d 601, 604, 605 n 2 [2013]). In that case, the Court held that conditioning a plea on a waiver of a constitutional speedy trial claim is “inherently coercive” (People v Blakley, 34 NY2d at 313). The narrow mode of proceedings exception speaks to fundamental flaws that implicate “rights of a constitutional dimension that go to the very heart of the process” … . Where, as in Blakley, the People condition a plea offer on the defendant’s waiver of his or her constitutional speedy trial claim, the integrity of the judicial process has been undermined … .

Here, the People expressly conditioned the plea offer on defendant’s withdrawal of his constitutional speedy trial motion, while the hearing on this issue was still pending. To make matters worse, the offer was set to expire as soon as the hearing resumed … . This is the type of prosecutorial bartering expressly prohibited as “inherently coercive” in People v Blakley (34 NY2d at 313). A trial court has a core obligation to recognize and prevent such an unfair tactic, but here the court simply reiterated the impermissible condition of the plea and waiver … . People v Wright, 2014 NY Slip Op 04976, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Evidence which Should Have Been Presented In the People’s Direct Case Should Not Have Been Allowed in Rebuttal

The Second Department determined the trial court erred in allowing the People to present more evidence after the defense rested. The charges were based upon allegations the defendant caused injuries to her baby by shaking the baby.  The People’s evidence demonstrated the defendant denied knowing that shaking the baby could cause injury.  The People were allowed to present evidence, after the defense had rested, that a nurse had explained the dangers of shaking to the defendant:

A court has the discretion to permit a party to present evidence in rebuttal, which, more properly, should have been presented in that party’s original case (see CPL 260.30[7]…). The Court of Appeals has approved the exercise of this discretion where the evidence proffered relates to an element of the offense which is “simple to prove and not seriously contested, and reopening the case does not unduly prejudice the defense” … .

Here, the missing element of the People’s case was not a simple, uncontested fact, but, instead, was the mens rea of the subject offense … . Indeed, the People’s own evidence established that the defendant denied knowing that her actions could result in injury to the child. Furthermore, the parties’ expert witnesses ” hotly contested'” … whether shaking could cause the type of injuries at issue and, if so, how much force would be necessary to cause such injuries, and there was no evidence that the defendant knew of the point when rocking or shaking could become potentially injurious.

Because this case does not fit within “the narrow circumstances where . . . the missing element is simple to prove and not seriously contested, and reopening the case does not unduly prejudice the defense” …, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s application to present the nurse’s testimony in rebuttal. Without this testimony, the People’s evidence was legally insufficient to establish the mens rea element of endangering the welfare of a child beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04970, 2nd Dept 7-2-2014

 

,

Court’s Erroneous Jury Instruction Re: State’s Territorial Jurisdiction Over the Alleged Crime Was Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—Objection Is Required to Preserve the Issue for Appeal

The First Department determined that the court’s erroneous jury instruction concerning the state’s terretorial jurisdiction over the case, as opposed to whether the state actually had territorial jurisdiction, required preservation by objection:

The trial court instructed the jury that the prosecution was required to establish the State’s territorial jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence. As the People concede, the charge was erroneous in this regard . On the contrary, the People were required to establish the State’s territorial jurisdiction by proof beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v McLaughlin, 80 NY2d at 470). Moreover, territorial jurisdiction is not waivable (id. at 471). Our analysis, however, does not end with a citation to McLaughlin. The issue before us involves the trial court’s charge on jurisdiction as opposed to jurisdiction itself. Although a challenge to a court’s territorial jurisdiction cannot be waived, a claim of error in a court’s instructions on the subject requires preservation by way of an appropriate objection at the court of first instance. Nonetheless, the requirement of preservation is subject to an exception that exists for “mode of proceedings” errors that consist of the most fundamental flaws implicating jurisdictional matters or constitutional rights that go to the very heart of the criminal justice process … . Defendant asserts that the mode of proceedings exception applies here. People v Carvajal (6 NY3d 305 [2005]), a case involving an interstate drug operation, is illustrative. In Carvajal, the Court noted that the defendant had “relinquished his opportunity to hold the People to their burden of proof, and did not preserve his current contention that the jury should have decided whether the People proved jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt” (id. at 311-312). Citing People v Greenberg (89 NY2d 553 [1997]), the Carvajal Court aptly observed that “a defendant’s failure to request a jury charge on territorial jurisdiction amounts to a waiver of a jury charge claim, that failure does not amount to waiver of the fundamental question whether – as a matter of law – this State has the power to hear the case” (id. at 312). In this case, it is undisputed that defendant did not object to the trial court’s erroneous charge on the burden of proof with respect to territorial jurisdiction. Guided by Carvajal, we find that defendant was required, but failed, to preserve his present challenge to the trial court’s charge on jurisdiction.  People v Polk, 2014 NY Slip Op 04561, 1st Dept 6-19-14

 

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