INMATES – New York Appellate Digest

Cell Phone In Possession of Inmate Met the Definition of “Dangerous Contraband” in the Context of a “Promoting Prison Contraband” Charge

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined that a cell phone constituted “dangerous contraband” within the meaning of “promoting prison contraband in the first degree.” The testimony of the supervising superintendent about the protections put in place concerning the recording and restrictions on inmate phone calls were sufficient to demonstrate the cell phone met the definition of “dangerous contraband:”

In this regard, the Court of Appeals has instructed that “the test for determining whether an item is dangerous contraband is whether its particular characteristics are such that there is a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility’s institutional safety or security” … . Notably, “the distinction between contraband and dangerous contraband” does not turn upon “whether an item is legal or illegal outside of prison . . . [as] [i]t is obvious that an item, such as a razor, may be perfectly legal outside prison and yet constitute dangerous contraband when introduced into that unpredictable environment” … . Similarly, as our case law makes clear, the item in question need not be inherently dangerous in order to qualify as dangerous contraband. Indeed, although weapons are perhaps the most commonly recognized source of dangerous contraband in a prison setting … , courts have applying the Finley test reached the very same conclusion with respect to other items made, obtained or possessed by prison inmates, including illegal quantities of drugs …, a disposable Bic lighter … and hand-drawn maps or knotted links of wire that could be used to facilitate an escape …. Although the majority in Finley did not expressly address this issue, Judge Pigott opined in his concurrence/dissent that, “[i]f the contraband at issue is not inherently dangerous . . . , the People must present specific, competent proof from which the trier of fact may infer that use of the contraband could potentially create a dangerous situation inside the facility” … . As a cell phone admittedly is not an inherently dangerous item, the question is whether the People adduced sufficient proof to establish the cell phone’s potential to be used in such a pernicious manner as to elevate it to the level of dangerous contraband. People v Green, 2014 NY Slip Op 03303, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

May 8, 2015

Criminal Law, Evidence

Heroin Upon Which Defendant Overdosed in His Cell Constituted “Dangerous Contraband”—Conviction for Promoting Prison Contraband in the First Degree Was Not Against the Weight of the Evidence

The Third Department determined defendant’s conviction for promoting prison contraband in the first degree was supported by the evidence. The contraband, heroin, was “dangerous” with the meaning of the statute because it endangered the safety of the defendant, who overdosed on the drug in his cell:

As noted by County Court, contraband will be considered dangerous under the statutory definition as long as it endangers the safety of “any person” (Penal Law § 205.00 [4]). Inasmuch as the heroin possessed by defendant clearly endangered his own safety, and he freely admitted that he used it to harm himself, there was legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that it constituted dangerous contraband and we do not find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence… . People v Verley, 2014 NY Slip Op 07208, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

October 23, 2014

Criminal Law

Meaning of Imprecise and Confusing Term “Violent Felony Override” Explained

The Second Department, in response to the defendant’s request for a “violent felony override” at sentencing, explained that the confusing term relates to a document that sets force the precise statute, including the section and subdivision, of which the defendant was convicted. Certain specific enumerated offenses, although violent felonies, will not disqualify an inmate from eligibility for temporary release. Only the Department of Corrections can make the determination whether a conviction disqualifies an inmate from eligibility:

“Violent felony override” is not a term contained in a statute or regulation. It is an imprecise and potentially confusing term that is sometimes used to describe a document referred to in 7 NYCRR 1900.4(c)(1)(iii) that permits the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter DOCCS) to ascertain whether an inmate has met one of the threshold requirements to be eligible for a temporary release program despite conviction of a specified violent felony offense (see Correction Law § 851[2]; Executive Order [Spitzer] No. 9 [9 NYCRR 6.9]; Executive Order [A. Cuomo] No. 2 [9 NYCRR 8.2]; 7 NYCRR 1900.4[c][1][ii], [iii]; [2]). Certain subdivisions of the specified violent felony offenses will not disqualify an inmate from eligibility for temporary release. The document provided for in 7 NYCRR 1900.4(c)(1)(iii) need only set forth the exact offense, including the section, and subdivision if any, of the crimes of which the inmate was convicted. When the document indicates that the inmate was convicted of a subdivision of one of the enumerated violent felony offenses that does not automatically disqualify the inmate from eligibility for temporary release, the inmate may use it to establish that he has met one of the threshold requirements for eligibility … . One source of confusion that may arise from the use of the term “violent felony override” is that the term may imply that the document itself qualifies the inmate for eligibility for temporary release. It does not. It is for DOCCS, and not the court or the district attorney, to determine whether conviction under a particular section and subdivision disqualifies an inmate from eligibility (see generally 7 NYCRR 1900.4).

A second source of confusion that may arise from the use of the term “violent felony [*2]override” to describe the document specified in 7 NYCRR 1900.4(c)(1)(iii) is the erroneous belief that the issuance of the document is discretionary. Although this provision refers to “a court-generated document or document generated by the Office of the District Attorney,” a defendant is entitled to have the exact subdivision of the statutory provisions under which he or she was convicted specified in the sentence and commitment: “[a] sentence and commitment or certificate of conviction, specifying the section, and to the extent applicable, the subdivision, paragraph and subparagraph of the penal law or other statute under which the defendant was convicted, or a certified copy thereof . . . must be delivered to the person in charge of the correctional facility or office of children and family services facility to which the defendant is committed at the time the defendant is delivered thereto” … . People v Lynch, 2014 NY Slip Op 06608, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

October 1, 2014

Court of Claims, Criminal Law, False Imprisonment, Immunity, Malicious Prosecution

Imprisonment and Prosecution Based Upon the Violation of an Administratively Imposed Period of Post Release Supervision Gave Rise to Valid False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution Causes of Action Against the State

In a lengthy and thorough opinion by Justice Spain, the Third Department determined that the claimant, who was imprisoned and prosecuted based upon an administratively imposed “post release supervision” (PRS) violation, was entitled to summary judgment on his false imprisonment cause of action and had stated a cause of action for malicious prosecution. The claimant was held in custody and prosecuted after the Court of Appeals had ruled that only the sentencing court can impose a term of post release supervision (Garner v NYS Dept of Correctional Services, 10 NY3d 358 [2008]):

…[C]aimant sufficiently alleged that his confinement was not privileged and it was defendant’s burden to establish that its confinement of claimant after Garner was privileged; defendant failed in the Court of Claims to produce a Division of Parole arrest warrant or a court order so as to demonstrate their validity or that the arrest or confinement of claimant was privileged … . Further, to clarify, claimant does not challenge his arrest prior to Garner but, rather, premises his claims on his continued detention and reincarceration – after Garner – for a parole violation based upon an administrativelyimposed PRS term that Garner clearly held was invalid, i.e., he raises a claim for false imprisonment and not for false arrest. * * *

…[D]efendant does not have immunity for the actions of its parole officials. To be sure, inherently discretionary parole decisions of government officials have been recognized to be quasi-judicial decisions entitled to absolute immunity … . “Where, however, the official has stepped outside the scope of his [or her] authority and acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or without a colorable claim of authority, there is plainly no entitlement to absolute immunity, even if the underlying acts are . . . quasi-judicial in nature” … . That is, “[t]here is a distinction between acts performed in excess of jurisdiction and acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter. The former is privileged, the latter is not”… . * * *

We similarly conclude that claimant stated a cause of action for malicious prosecution. To make out a claim for malicious prosecution, claimant must establish: “(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the [claimant], (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice” …. . … On the second prong, claimant need not “demonstrate innocence” of the parole violation in order to satisfy that favorable termination prong; rather, claimant can satisfy it by showing that “there can be no further prosecution of the [alleged parole violation]” … . We believe it self evident, under the facts here and despite the lack of state law on point, that defendant could not, after Sparber and Garner, ever lawfully prosecute claimant on a parole violation that occurred before those decisions, where the PRS in effect at the time of the alleged violation was imposed by DOCS and was, as such, a nullity… Moulton v State of New York, 515096, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

December 26, 2013

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates)

Department of Corrections Has Right to Force-Feed Inmate on Hunger Strike

The Court of Appeals determined that the state has the right to force-feed an inmate (Dorsey) who is on a hunger strike, once the inmate’s life is in jeopardy. The opinion by Judge Graffeo is lengthy and deals with preservation requirements, the mootness doctrine, as well as the constitutional rights implicated in the refusal of medical care. Judge Lippman dissented, addressing primarily his view that the issues discussed on appeal had not been preserved and the “exception to mootness” doctrine had been misapplied. Judge Graffeo wrote:

It is therefore evident that DOCCS’ decision to intervene when Dorsey’s hunger strike progressed to the point that his life was in jeopardy was reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives. Taking action to interrupt an inmate hunger strike not only serves to preserve life and prevent a suicide but also to maintain institutional order and security. There was no way that DOCCS could effectuate these interests other than to seek a judicial order permitting feeding by nasogastric tube — less intrusive means had been attempted without success. Dorsey had been moved to the infirmary and medical staff within the facility had repeatedly counseled him in an attempt to get him to voluntarily abandon the hunger strike (as he had done before) to no avail. Matter of Bezio v Dorsey, No 65, CtApp, 5-2-13

May 2, 2013

Civil Rights Law, Criminal Law, Religion

Inmate Should Not Have Been Required to Document His Native American Ancestry In Order to Practice His Religion

In annulling a determination by the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) that the petitioner (an inmate) must document his Native American ancestry before he will be allowed to practice his religion, the Third Department wrote:

It has been recognized that correction officials may impose restrictions on the religious practices of inmates provided that such restrictions are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests … .Respondents candidly concede, and we agree, that CORC failed to articulate or otherwise identify any legitimate penological interest reasonably served by the documentation requirement. Consequently, we conclude that the determinations at issue are arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis… . Matter of Santiago, 514317, 3rd Dept, 4-18-13

April 18, 2013

Tag Archive for: INMATES