You are here: / COURT OF APPEALS (POWER TO REVIEW)

Tag Archive for: COURT OF APPEALS (POWER TO REVIEW)

,

THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN HEAR THE APPEAL OF AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE; A FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS UNDERLYING THE FOREIGN CONVICTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the Court of Appeals could hear the appeal of an unpreserved sentencing issue first raised in a motion to vacate the sentence (Criminal Procedure Law 440.20) and further determined that a Washington DC robbery conviction should not have been deemed a predicate felony. Because the DC statute could be violated by “snatching” property from someone, an act which would not be felony robbery in New York, the Court of Appeals held it could not be the basis for defendant’s conviction as a second felony offender, irrespective of whether the actual facts underlying the DC conviction would constitute a felony in New York:

A CPL 440.20 motion is the proper vehicle for raising a challenge to a sentence as “unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law” (CPL 440.20 [1]), and a determination of second felony offender status is an aspect of the sentence (see CPL 70.06 [included in CPL article 70, addressing sentences of imprisonment]). One of the legal defects that can be challenged in a CPL 440.20 motion is an alleged error in sentencing a defendant as a second or third felony offender, including the decision to consider certain prior convictions as predicates. Raising the predicate felony sentencing issue in a CPL 440.20 motion serves the goals and purposes of the preservation rule by permitting the parties to present their arguments on the issue in the trial court, creating a record for appellate review, and allowing the trial court the first opportunity to correct any error [FN3]. Thus, we may address defendant’s current challenge — that the sentence was illegal because the D.C. conviction did not render him a second felony offender — on the appeal of the denial of his CPL 440.20 motion to set aside the sentence. * * *

… [U]nder the D.C. statute the taking can occur (1) by force or violence, or (2) by putting in fear. The force or violence element can be accomplished (1) against resistance, or (2) by sudden or stealthy seizure, or (3) by snatching … . Stated another way, “the statute must be interpreted to include ‘stealthy seizure’ as a form of ‘force or violence'” … . The statutory language means that the crime can be committed in different ways, and the phrase “sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching” does not describe separate criminal acts required by the statute in addition to the use of “force or violence” … . Consequently, we do not look at the underlying accusatory instrument to determine if the crime is equivalent to a New York felony … . Because the statute, itself, indicates that a person can be convicted of the D.C. crime without committing an act that would qualify as a felony in New York (i.e., by pickpocketing), defendant’s D.C. conviction for attempt to commit robbery was not a proper basis for a predicate felony offender adjudication … . People v Jurgins, 2015 NY Slip Op 09311, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEAL OF UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE LIES FROM DENIAL OF A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE)/CRIMINAL LAW (FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT BE THE BASIS OF A PREDICATE FELONY)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEAL OF UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE LIES FROM DENIAL OF A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE)/PREDICATE FELONY (A FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A PREDICATE FELONY)/FOREIGN FELONY (A FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A PREDICATE FELONY)

,

No Appeal to the Court of Appeals Lies from the Appellate Division’s Affirmance of the Denial of Resentencing Pursuant to the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA)

The Court of Appeals determined no appeal lies from the Appellate Division’s affirmance of the denial of resentencing pursuant to the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA). The fact that the order (denying resentencing) was consolidated with appealable orders did not confer jurisdiction to hear the appeal upon the Court of Appeals:

“It is well established that no appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless specifically provided for by statute,” and courts “may not resort to interpretative contrivances to broaden the scope and application of statutes” governing the availability of an appeal … . [W]e have held that no statutory provision authorizes a defendant to appeal from an Appellate Division order affirming the denial of the defendant’s resentencing application pursuant to the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act … . The 2004 DLRA includes similar language relating to appeals; accordingly, no appeal lies from an order of the Appellate Division affirming the denial of a resentencing application under the 2004 DLRA … . Faced with this barrier to our review, defendant contends that the Appellate Division’s consolidation of the order denying resentencing with other, appealable orders, transformed the nonappealable order into one that we may consider. We disagree. The Appellate Division’s authority to consolidate appeals stems from its inherent authority to administer and manage its proceedings. The Appellate Division’s use of this inherent authority does not expand or modify the scope of our jurisdiction, which is established by statute. People v Lovett, 2015 NY Slip Op 05512, CtApp 6-25-15

 

,

Court of Appeals Can Not Hear the Appeal of an Issue Not Preserved by Objection

The Court of Appeals could not hear the defendant’s appeal because the issue was not preserved by an objection or by an express decision on the question by the trial court. “The issue argued on this appeal is whether the police were required to again read defendant his Miranda rights when they interviewed him a second time, at his request and in the presence of counsel. In particular, defendant contends that the courts below erred in determining that the presence of counsel obviated the need for police to advise him of his right to remain silent during the second interview. Defendant, however, did not make this argument in his motion papers to the trial court or at the suppression hearing. Moreover, while a general objection — such as that contained in defendant’s omnibus motion — is sufficient to preserve an issue for our review when the trial court “expressly decided the question raised on appeal” …, here, Supreme Court did not expressly decide the issue of whether the police were required to advise defendant of his right to remain silent under the circumstances presented by the second interview.” People v Graham, 2015 NY Slip Op 03767, CtApp 5-7-15

 

,

Whether Arresting Officers Had Reasonable Suspicion to Stop and Detain Is a Mixed Question of Law and Fact Which Cannot Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals, over a strong dissent, determined it did not have jurisdiction to consider whether the police had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and detention of the defendant, a mixed question of law and fact:

Whether the circumstances of a particular case rise to the level of reasonable suspicion presents a mixed question of law and fact … . Because the Appellate Division’s reversals were thus not “on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]), these appeals are not authorized to be taken.

While acknowledging that “determinations as to reasonable suspicion typically present a mixed question of law and fact,” the dissent cites People v McRay (51 NY2d 594 [1980]) for the proposition that these cases instead involve a straight-up question of law — namely, “the minimum showing necessary to establish reasonable suspicion” … . In McRay, though, the Appellate Division reversed the suppression court on the ground that the People’s proof was insufficient as a matter of law to support probable cause to arrest (id. at 605). When we disagreed and reversed, we therefore remitted to the Appellate Division for factual review, emphasizing that an inference of probable cause was permitted, but not required, on the facts established (id. at 605, 606). Here, by contrast, the Appellate Division reversed the suppression court because, when exercising its independent fact-finding powers, it drew a different inference from the established facts, thus deciding a mixed question of law and fact. The dissenting Judge strongly disagrees with the Appellate Division. But the views of individual Judges of this Court on the merits of defendants’ suppression motions are beside the point because the Criminal Procedure Law simply does not vest us with jurisdiction to entertain these appeals… . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 02552, CtApp 3-26-15

 

,

Overruling Long-Standing Precedent, The Court of Appeals Determined It Has the Power to Review the Summary Denial of a 440 Motion for Abuse of Discretion/The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in this Case/The Matter Was Sent Back for a Hearing

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, overruling long-standing precedent, held that the Court of Appeals has the power to review the summary denial of a motion to vacate a conviction based upon newly discovered evidence [Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.10(1)(g)]. The defendant had already completed his sentence for rape when he had trial evidence—hairs and fingernail scrapings—subjected to DNA analysis.  The DNA results excluded the defendant.  The trial court summarily denied the motion to vacate and the Appellate Division affirmed.  The Court of Appeals reversed and sent the matter back for a hearing:

…[T]his Court is empowered to conduct a review of the lower courts’ summary denial of a defendant’s CPL 440.10 (1) (g) motion, and to determine whether that denial constituted an abuse of discretion as a matter of law without running afoul of the jurisdictional limitations set forth in NY Constitution, article VI, § 3 (a). Although we are prohibited from weighing facts and evidence in noncapital cases, we are not precluded from exercising our “power to determine whether in a particular judgmental and factual setting there has been an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” because, in so doing, we are not “passing on facts as such, but rather considering them to the extent that they are a foundation for the application of law” … . * * *

On this record, there is a dispute between defendant and the People concerning the reliability of the mtDNA testing, what the results of such testing actually mean and the weight to be given those results in light of the eyewitness identification. As such, defendant should have been afforded a hearing so he could have at the very least an opportunity of “proving by a preponderance of the evidence every fact essential to support [his] motion” (CPL 440.30 [6]), including his assertion that had such DNA evidence been presented at trial, he would have received a more favorable verdict. We reach this conclusion not by weighing the facts or the inferences drawn therefrom, but by examining the parties’ submissions and concluding that the People failed to counter defendant’s prima facie showing that he was entitled to a hearing. Not every CPL 440.10 motion brought by a defendant will warrant a hearing, nor will every summary denial of such a motion constitute an abuse of discretion, but where, as here, there is significant DNA evidence favorable to the defendant and the People proffer no admissible evidence in opposition to that evidence, defendant is, at the very least, entitled to a hearing on his motion. People v Jones, 2014 NY Slip Op 08760, CtApp 12-16-14

 

,

Application of the Emergency Doctrine Presented a Mixed Question of Law and Fact which Could Not Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals determined that the application of the “emergency doctrine” to justify the warrantless search for and seizure of a weapon was a mixed question of law and fact which was not reviewable by the Court of Appeals.  The police responded to a call indicating the defendant had shot himself in the hand.  After the defendant had been frisked and while he his wound was being treated, police officers searched the backyard and found a weapon. The appellate division held that the search was justified by the officers' concern that the children in the house might come across the weapon.  The dissenting judge granted leave to appeal.  The Court of Appeals explained when a mixed question of law and fact is beyond that court's review:

Application of the “emergency doctrine” involves a mixed question of law and fact that is beyond this Court's review so long as there is record support for the findings of the courts below … . The Appellate Division majority and dissent both applied the test set forth in People v Mitchell (39 NY2d 173, 177-178 [1976], cert denied 426 US 953 [1976]) and reached conflicting conclusions as to when the emergency ceased. Because there is record support for the majority's conclusion that the search was lawful under the emergency exception, “'any further review is beyond this Court's jurisdiction'” … . People v Rossi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07006, CtApp 10-16-14

 

,

Jury Should Have Been Instructed that It Could Determine Whether Witness Was an Accomplice and Assess the Witness’ Credibility Accordingly/Propriety of Jury Instruction Is Reviewable by the Court of Appeals as a Matter of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the trial court committed reversible error by refusing defendant’s request for an “accomplice-in-fact” jury instruction.  The defendant’s conviction for manslaughter for participation in a beating death involving several assailants was based in large part upon the testimony of an eyewitness.  The Court of Appeals found that there was enough evidence of the eyewitness’ participation in the crime to warrant an instruction which would allow the jury to determine if the eyewitness was an accomplice and to assess the eyewitness’ credibility accordingly.  The Court explained the “accomplice as a matter of law” and “accomplice-in-fact” theories:

An accomplice is “a witness in a criminal action who, according to the evidence adduced in such action, may reasonably be considered to have participated in: (a) [t]he offense charged; or (b) [a]n offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged” (CPL 60.22 [2]). Under our criminal law, “[a] defendant may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense” (CPL 60.22 [1]). Testimony of such a witness, marked by obvious self interest, carries the potential for falsification to avoid prosecution … . * * *

Where the court determines on the evidence that a witness comes within the meaning of CPL 60.22 (2), the witness is an accomplice as a matter of law, and the court must instruct the jury that the witness is an accomplice and subject to the statutory corroboration requirement … . * * * In a case where the court concludes that a factual dispute exists as to whether the witness is an accomplice under the statute, the factual question is left for the jury to resolve… . * * *

We have found a witness is an accomplice as a matter of law where, for example, the witness pleads guilty to aiding the defendant in the commission of the crime …, or otherwise confirms participation or assisting in the charged crime … .

In contrast, the witness may be found to be an accomplice in fact where there are factual disputes as to the witness’s participation or intent, such that “different inferences may reasonably be drawn” from the evidence as to the witness’s role as an accomplice … .  * * *  The propriety of a jury instruction is reviewable as a matter of law… .  People v Sage, 2014 NY Slip Op 02214, CtApp 4-1-14

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy