​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFINITION OF 'BUILDING' REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS BURGLARY PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, BURGLARY, (INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFINITION OF 'BUILDING' REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS BURGLARY PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT))/BURGLARY (JURY INSTRUCTIONS, INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFINITION OF 'BUILDING' REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS BURGLARY PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT))/BUILDING (DEFINITION, BURGLARY STATUTE, INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFINITION OF 'BUILDING' REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS BURGLARY PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW.

​

INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFINITION OF 'BUILDING' REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS BURGLARY PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT).

​

The Fourth Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial because the court did not properly instruct the jury on the definition of a "building" within the meaning of the burglary statute:

​

... "[T]he court instructed the jurors that a dwelling is a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night. A bedroom in a home, where there is more than one tenant, may be considered independent of the rest of the house and may be considered a separate dwelling within a building.' The court, however, failed to include the part of the definition of building that would require the jury to determine whether the house at issue consisted of two or more units' and whether the bedroom at issue was a unit that was separately secured or occupied' (Penal Law § 140.00 [2]). Consequently, given the omission of the definition of ["unit"] and/or ["separately secured or occupied,"] the instruction did not adequately convey the meaning of ["building"] to the jury and instead created a great likelihood of confusion such that the degree of precision required for a jury charge was not met' " ... . People v Downey, 2018 NY Slip Op 00758, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

​

 

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (REPUGNANT VERDICTS, PETITION TO PROHIBIT RETRIAL OF A MANSLAUGHTER COUNT DENIED, ALTHOUGH THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISMISSED THE COUNT AFTER DETERMINING THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AGREEING THAT THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, HELD THAT THE PEOPLE COULD SEEK A SECOND INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/REPUGNANT VERDICTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PETITION TO PROHIBIT RETRIAL OF A MANSLAUGHTER COUNT DENIED, ALTHOUGH THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISMISSED THE COUNT AFTER DETERMINING THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AGREEING THAT THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, HELD THAT THE PEOPLE COULD SEEK A SECOND INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

​

CRIMINAL LAW.

​

PETITION TO PROHIBIT RETRIAL OF A MANSLAUGHTER COUNT DENIED, ALTHOUGH THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISMISSED THE COUNT AFTER DETERMINING THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AGREEING THAT THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, HELD THAT THE PEOPLE COULD SEEK A SECOND INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

​

The Fourth Department dismissed an Article 78 petition seeking to prohibit retrial in a manslaughter case. The Fourth Department had dismissed the manslaughter count after determining the verdict was repugnant. The Court of Appeals agreed the verdict was repugnant but held that dismissal of the was not required:

​

Petitioner was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime ... and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree ... . On appeal from the judgment of conviction, we determined that the verdict convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime yet acquitting him of manslaughter in the first degree was inconsistent, i.e., " legally impossible,' " inasmuch as all of the elements of manslaughter in the first degree are elements of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime ... . We thus modified the judgment by reversing that part convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime and dismissing that count of the indictment.

 

The Court of Appeals agreed that "the jury's verdict was inconsistent, and thus repugnant" ... , but disagreed with our remedy of dismissal. The Court explained that there is "no constitutional or statutory provision that mandates dismissal for a repugnancy error," ...  and that "a repugnant verdict does not always signify that a defendant has been convicted of a crime on which the jury actually found that he did not commit an essential element" ... . ... As a result, the Court determined that the People could "resubmit the crime of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime to a new grand jury" ... . Matter of DeLee v Brunetti, 2018 NY Slip Op 00742, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION MERGE AND CANNOT RUN CONSECUTIVELY (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION MERGE AND CANNOT RUN CONSECUTIVELY (FOURTH DEPT))/POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION  (PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION MERGE AND CANNOT RUN CONSECUTIVELY (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN IF ISSUE NOT RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))

​

CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS.

​

PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION MERGE AND CANNOT RUN CONSECUTIVELY, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN IF ISSUE NOT RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

​

The Fourth Department noted that periods of postrelease supervision cannot run consecutively. An illegal sentence must be corrected even if the issue is not raised on appeal:

​

... [T]he court erred in directing that the periods of postrelease supervision run consecutively to the periods of postrelease supervision imposed in appeal No. 1 ... . "Penal Law § 70.45 (5) (c) requires that the periods of postrelease supervision merge and are satisfied by the service of the longest unexpired term" ... . We cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand ... and we therefore modify the judgment ...  accordingly. People v Mcmillian, 2018 NY Slip Op 00649, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL INVALID (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL INVALID (SECOND DEPT))/WAIVER (RIGHT TO APPEAL, CRIMINAL LAW WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL INVALID (SECOND DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS.

​

WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

​

The Second Department determined defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was not valid:

​

... [T]he record of the plea proceeding did not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal. The Supreme Court, after inquiring of counsel whether the defendant had executed a written waiver, advised the defendant: "[Y]ou have just executed the waiver of appeal. And by doing so, you have given up your right to appeal, which means there will be no appeal with regards to anything in your case." Instead of ascertaining whether the defendant had made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent choice to waive his right to appeal as a condition of his plea, the court merely informed the defendant that he had already waived his right to appeal by executing the appeal waiver and then confirmed that the defendant understood this established fact. "[A] defendant does not validly waive his or her right to appeal where the colloquy suggests that waiving the right to appeal [is] mandatory rather than a right which the defendant [is] being asked to voluntarily relinquish'" ... . Moreover, the court failed to establish on the record that the defendant read and understood the written waiver, or discussed the waiver with his counsel ... . People v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 00567, Second Dept 1-31-18

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING CHARGES REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING CHARGES REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING CHARGES REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT))

​

CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS.

​

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING CHARGES REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in the interest of justice (error not preserved), determined that the judge's failure to instruct the jury that a not guilty verdict on the top count based on the justification defense precluded consideration of the remaining charges was reversible error. The top count was attempted murder and defendant was convicted of assault second degree:

​

... [T]the court's charge failed to convey that an acquittal on the top count of attempted second-degree murder based on a finding of justification would preclude consideration of the remaining charges. We find that this error was not harmless and that it warrants reversal in the interest of justice ... . People v Marcucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 00634, First Dept 2-1-18

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY COUNTY COURT, APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE CONVICTION AND ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY COUNTY COURT, APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE CONVICTION AND ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY COUNTY COURT, APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE CONVICTION AND ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS.

​

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY COUNTY COURT, APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE CONVICTION AND ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

​

The Fourth Department vacated defendant's conviction and adjudicated defendant a youthful offender in the interest of justice (no abuse of discretion). The only factor weighing against youthful offender treatment was the seriousness of the crime, an armed felony:

​

In determining whether to afford such treatment to a defendant, a court must consider "the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, mitigating circumstances, defendant's prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, defendant's reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, defendant's attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life" ... . Here, the only factor weighing against affording defendant youthful offender treatment is the seriousness of the crime ... . Defendant was 17 years old at the time of the crime and had no prior criminal record or history of violence. Defendant has accepted responsibility for his actions and expressed genuine remorse. The presentence report recommended youthful offender treatment, and the record establishes that defendant has the capacity for a productive and law-abiding future.

 

Although we do not conclude, after weighing the appropriate factors, that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant youthful offender status, we nevertheless choose to exercise our discretion in the interest of justice by reversing the judgment, vacating the conviction, and adjudicating defendant a youthful offender, and we remit the matter to County Court for sentencing on the adjudication ... . People v Keith B.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 00734, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS, APPEALS, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/CORRECTIONS LAW (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/ILLEGAL SENTENCE (SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS, APPEALS, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/INTERNET IDENTIFIERS, FAILURE TO REGISTER (CORRECTIONS LAW, SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS, APPEALS, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS.

​

SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

​

The Fourth Department noted than an illegal sentence must be corrected even where there has been a waiver of appeal, and even where the issue was not raised below or on appeal. Here defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender, which is not proper when the underlying felony is defined in the Correction Law, not in the Penal Law:

​

... [I]t is well settled that "even a valid waiver of the right to appeal will not bar [review of] an illegal sentence" ... , and we note that the sentence imposed by the court on count three of the superior court information, i.e., a determinate term of incarceration for failure to register internet identifiers as a class D felony, is illegal. That crime is defined in the Correction Law, and "only a person convicted of a felony defined by the Penal Law may be sentenced as a second felony offender" to a determinate term of incarceration ... . "Although [the] issue was not raised before the [sentencing] court or on appeal, we cannot allow an [illegal] sentence to stand" ... . People v Mcdonald, 2018 NY Slip Op 00657, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, DEFENSE COUNSEL, BY TAKING A POSITION ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE DEFENDANT WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL, BY TAKING A POSITION ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE DEFENDANT WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL, BY TAKING A POSITION ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE DEFENDANT WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS.

​

DEFENSE COUNSEL, BY TAKING A POSITION ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE DEFENDANT WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

​

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to consideration of his pro se motion to set aside the verdict on ineffective assistance grounds. Defense counsel told the court he did not adopt the motion and didn't think it was correct. By taking a position adverse to his client's, defense counsel had deprived defendant of effective assistance:

​

Defense counsel, by taking a position adverse to that of his client on the motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30, deprived the defendant of effective assistance of counsel ... . Accordingly, since the appellant has not addressed the merits of the CPL 330.30 motion in his brief, but rather, requests remittitur to the Supreme Court, we remit the matter for further proceedings on the merits of the motion and thereafter a report to this Court limited to the Supreme Court's findings with respect to the motion and whether the defendant has established his entitlement to the relief sought in his motion. We express no opinion as to the merits of the defendant's motion and we decide no other issues at this time. People v Freire, 2018 NY Slip Op 00564, Second Dept 1-31-18

​

 

 

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE CHARGED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE WAS WEAK, THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WAS PLAUSIBLE, AND THE SENTENCING DISPARITY WAS ENORMOUS (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE CHARGED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE WAS WEAK, THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WAS PLAUSIBLE, AND THE SENTENCING DISPARITY WAS ENORMOUS (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE CHARGED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE WAS WEAK, THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WAS PLAUSIBLE, AND THE SENTENCING DISPARITY WAS ENORMOUS (SECOND DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE CHARGED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE WAS WEAK, THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WAS PLAUSIBLE, AND THE SENTENCING DISPARITY WAS ENORMOUS (SECOND DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS.

​

FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE CHARGED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE WAS WEAK, THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WAS PLAUSIBLE, AND THE SENTENCING DISPARITY WAS ENORMOUS (SECOND DEPT).

​

The Second Department determined defense counsel's failure to ask that the jury be charged with the lesser included offense of trespass in this burglary prosecution constituted ineffective assistance. The court noted that, because defendant was a persistent violent felony offender he faced a minimum sentence of 16 to life on the burglary conviction, but a trespass conviction would entail only one year in jail. The evidence that defendant intended to steal something was weak, the mistaken-identification defense put forth by defense counsel was weak, so trespass would have been a viable alternative for the jury:

​

In deciding whether to ask for submission of the lesser included offense, defense counsel was obligated to consider the possible consequences of that decision for his client. The defendant was a persistent violent felony offender who, upon his conviction of burglary in the second degree (see Penal Law § 70.02[1][b]), faced a minimum sentence of 16 years to life imprisonment... . By contrast, upon conviction of criminal trespass in the second degree, which, like the remaining charge, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, was a class A misdemeanor, the defendant faced a maximum of one year in jail. That is not to say that counsel would have been required to argue the lesser included offense in summation, but it was not reasonable for counsel to deprive the jury of the opportunity to consider it ... . Given the weakness of the mistaken-identification defense, the plausibility of the lesser included offense, and the enormous sentencing disparity between a burglary conviction and a criminal trespass conviction, counsel's failure to request submission of the lesser included offense cannot be considered part of a legitimate all-or-nothing strategy. Under the circumstances, counsel's failure to request submission of the lesser included offense deprived the defendant of his right to meaningful representation ... . People v Orama, 2018 NY Slip Op 00571, Second Dept 1-31-18

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, IMMIGRATION.

​

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).

​

The First Department determined defendant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel because he was told only that his plea had potential immigration consequences when in fact deportation was mandatory:

​

Defendant was deprived of effective assistance when his counsel advised him that his plea would have "potential immigration consequences," where it is clear that his drug-related conviction would trigger mandatory deportation under 8 USC § 1227(a)(2)(B)(I) ... . The remarks made by counsel on the record are sufficient to permit review on direct appeal ... . Thus, we hold this matter in abeyance to afford defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been made aware of the deportation consequences of his plea. People v Pequero, 2018 NY Slip Op 00619, First Dept 2-1-18

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

 

CRIMINAL LAW (CLOSURE OF COURTROOM BASED UPON WITNESS'S FEAR WAS PROPER (FIRST DEPT))/CLOSURE OF COURTROOM (CRIMINAL LAW, CLOSURE OF COURTROOM BASED UPON WITNESS'S FEAR WAS PROPER (FIRST DEPT))/PUBLIC TRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, CLOSURE OF COURTROOM BASED UPON WITNESS'S FEAR WAS PROPER (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, PUBLIC TRIAL, CLOSURE OF COURTROOM BASED UPON WITNESS'S FEAR WAS PROPER (FIRST DEPT))

​

CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

​

CLOSURE OF COURTROOM BASED UPON WITNESS'S FEAR WAS PROPER (FIRST DEPT).

​

The First Department noted that the closure of the courtroom during a prosecution witness's testimony was proper in this gang-related murder case:

​

The record established an overriding interest in partially, and later completely, closing the courtroom during the testimony of an identifying eyewitness (see Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39, 48 [1984]), and the other requirements of Waller were likewise satisfied as to both closures. The witness's "extreme fear of testifying in open court was sufficient to establish an overriding interest" ... , because the witness's inability to testify without the closures at issue "could have severely undermined the truth seeking function of the court" ... in this gang-related murder case. ...

​

... [T]he court conducted a hearing at which the witness testified that he previously had been threatened for cooperating with the prosecution in another trial, that he had heard threats made against potential prosecution witnesses in the present case, and that he and his family lived in the same neighborhood where the shooting occurred. The court was entitled to credit the witness's testimony that he felt threatened by defendant's cousin and could not testify in his presence ... . Although the cousin did not make any direct threats to the witness, he appeared to be closely associated with a person who did so. People v Sharp, 2018 NY Slip Op 00623, First Dept 2-1-18

 

 

 

 

 

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY, INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT))/GRAND LARCENY (ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY, INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT))/INTENT (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY, INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT))

​

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE.

​

INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT).

​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the attempted grand larceny counts should not have been dismissed or reduced based upon the grand jury evidence. The defendant was attempting to remove mail from a mailbox in which envelopes containing money orders had been planted by the police. There was no evidence any of the envelopes defendant had removed contained the planted money orders. The motion court reduced the grand larceny counts because it could not be proven defendant intended to steal property of a certain value. The First Department held that the intent requirement does not attach to the value element of the offense:

​

The court erred in dismissing one count of the indictment, and reducing another, on the ground that the People were required to present proof of intent with regard to the property value elements of attempted grand larceny in the third and fourth degrees. These elements are strict liability aggravating factors when the completed crimes are charged. While the Penal Law definitions of attempt (Penal Law § 110.00) and intentionally (Penal Law § 15.05[1]) may be susceptible to the interpretation accorded them by the motion court, any ambiguity has been resolved by the Court of Appeals' holding in People v Miller (87 NY2d 211 [1995]), that a strict liability aggravating factor of a completed crime is not a "result" to which an intent requirement attaches when an attempt to commit the completed crime is charged. Accordingly, the mental culpability requirements for an attempt and a completed crime are identical... , and the court erred in finding that the attempted grand larceny charges required evidence of intent to steal property of a certain value. People v Deleon, 2018 NY Slip Op 00531,  First Dept 1-30-18

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPTED ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPTED ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPTED ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE.

​

DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPTED ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

​

The Second Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined the attempted assault conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

​

The only witness who identified the defendant prior to trial admitted to being intoxicated at the time of the stabbing incident. That witness failed to identify the defendant at trial. Although the People presented the testimony of three other witnesses who identified the defendant at the trial, those witnesses did not identify the defendant at any point prior to the trial, even though they were present at the scene of the crime when the defendant was apprehended and they appeared at a police precinct for questioning later that day. Two of the witnesses' descriptions of the perpetrator's clothing varied significantly from the clothing worn by the defendant upon his apprehension, which occurred within minutes of the incident. At the scene, those witnesses provided no further description of the defendant. Despite testimony that the victim began "gush[ing]" blood after he was stabbed during a physical struggle, the arresting officer did not remember having seen any blood on the defendant's person or clothing when he was apprehended. That police officer testified that, after witnesses pointed to the perpetrator, he briefly "lost sight" of that person before apprehending the defendant. People v Serrano, 2018 NY Slip Op 00573, Second Dept 1-31-18

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, CODEFENDANT WAS SEEN ENTERING A CAR WITH A WEAPON WHICH WAS LATER FOUND ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE WEAPON WAS POSSESSED BY ALL IN THE CAR DID NOT APPLY, DEFENDANT'S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, CODEFENDANT WAS SEEN ENTERING A CAR WITH A WEAPON WHICH WAS LATER FOUND ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE WEAPON WAS POSSESSED BY ALL IN THE CAR DID NOT APPLY, DEFENDANT'S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/WEAPON, POSSESSION OF (CODEFENDANT WAS SEEN ENTERING A CAR WITH A WEAPON WHICH WAS LATER FOUND ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE WEAPON WAS POSSESSED BY ALL IN THE CAR DID NOT APPLY, DEFENDANT'S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/PENAL LAW 265.15 (POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, STATUTORY PRESUMPTION, CODEFENDANT WAS SEEN ENTERING A CAR WITH A WEAPON WHICH WAS LATER FOUND ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE WEAPON WAS POSSESSED BY ALL IN THE CAR DID NOT APPLY, DEFENDANT'S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

​

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE.

​

CODEFENDANT WAS SEEN ENTERING A CAR WITH A WEAPON WHICH WAS LATER FOUND ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE WEAPON WAS POSSESSED BY ALL IN THE CAR DID NOT APPLY, DEFENDANT'S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant's conviction for possession of a weapon, determined the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction. A co-defendant was seen (by the police) getting into a car with the weapon. Defendant also got into the car. The police followed. Before the police pulled the car over, when the car was out of sight, the weapon was thrown out of the car. A cell phone found near the weapon was tied to the defendant, but the weapon was not. The statutory presumption that a weapon in a vehicle is possessed by all in the vehicle did not apply because the weapon was in the possession of a codefendant when he got into the car:

​

We agree with defendant that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. There is no evidence that he owned or was operating the vehicle, nor is there evidence that he engaged in any other activity that would support a finding that he constructively possessed the weapon... Furthermore, the statutory presumption of possession set forth in Penal Law § 265.15 (3) also does not apply here. The statute provides that "[t]he presence in an automobile, other than a stolen one or a public omnibus, of any firearm . . . is presumptive evidence of its possession by all persons occupying such automobile at the time such weapon . . . is found" ... . The statute further provides, however, that the presumption does not apply, inter alia, "if such weapon . . . is found upon the person of one of the occupants therein" (§ 265.15 [3] [a]). Here, the weapon was not found in the vehicle, and the codefendant was holding it while he was observed entering the vehicle. Consequently, "the evidence is clearcut and leads to the sole conclusion that the weapon was . . . upon the person" of the codefendant ... .

 

The People's contention that defendant threw the weapon out the window, or assisted the codefendant in doing so, because it was found on the right side of the vehicle is based on speculation. Finally, the People introduced no evidence that would support a finding that defendant possessed the weapon as an accomplice. People v Willingham, 2018 NY Slip Op 00733, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

​

 

 

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM 'PERSON' IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM 'PERSON' IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH DEPT))/CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSIL) (CRIMINAL LAW, NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM 'PERSON' IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (FOURTH DEPT))/CELL PHONES (CRIMINAL LAW, CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (FOURTH DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE.

​

NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM 'PERSON' IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH DEPT).

​

The Fourth Department, in a comprehensive decision dealing with several substantive issues not summarized here, affirmed defendant's first degree murder (four counts) and burglary convictions, and reduced the arson second degree conviction to arson third degree. The victims were not alive when the fire was set. The definition of "person" (in the Arson second statute) was interpreted to refer to a living person. In addition, the court held that the motion to suppress the cell site location information (CSLI), which the police obtained without a warrant, and which placed defendant in the town where the crime was committed at the time of the crime, was properly denied:

​

As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has written, "[w]e understand that cell phone users may reasonably want their location information to remain private, just as they may want their trash, placed curbside in opaque bags . . . or the view of their property from 400 feet above the ground . . . to remain so. But the recourse for these desires is in the market or the political process: in demanding that service providers do away with such records (or anonymize them) or in lobbying elected representatives to enact statutory protections. The Fourth Amendment, safeguarded by the courts, protects only reasonable expectations of privacy" (Application of U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F3d at 615).

 

With respect to defendant's state constitutional challenge, we conclude that "there is no sufficient reason' to afford cell site location information at issue here greater protection under the state constitution than it is afforded under the federal constitution" ... . People v Taylor, 2018 NY Slip Op 00709, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

​

 

 

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, HEARSAY, POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, HEARSAY, POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS (HEARSAY,  POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE.

​

POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant's conviction for possession of a forged instrument (counterfeit check), determined two categories of hearsay evidence were improperly admitted without foundation:

​

... [T]he court "erred in admitting in evidence a printout of electronic data that was displayed on a computer screen [after] defendant presented a check, the allegedly forged instrument, to a bank teller. The People failed to establish that the printout falls within the business records exception to the hearsay rule . . . [because they] presented no evidence that the data displayed on the computer screen, resulting in the printout, was entered in the regular course of business" ... . ...

​

... [T]he court improperly admitted an investigator's testimony about the results of a search he ran in a credit bureau's commercial database for email addresses and a telephone number contained in a cover letter that enclosed the counterfeit check defendant tried to cash. The People failed to establish the requisite foundation for this testimony inasmuch as the investigator did not testify that he "is familiar with the practices of [the] company that produced the records at issue" and that he "generally relies upon such records" ... . People v Jones, 2018 NY Slip Op 00710, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

​

 

 

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE/AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

​

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE.

​

MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant's conviction and dismissing the indictment, over a two-justice dissent, determined the defendant's murder conviction was against the weight of the evidence. The majority stated that the evidence demonstrated the defendant was probably guilty, but did not rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The dissenters stated they "agreed" with the majority's "implicit" determination that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, but they disagreed with the majority's conclusion that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. The decision describes the evidence in great detail which cannot be fairly summarized here. In a nutshell, there was evidence the defendant went into a motel room with the victim, where the victim was found dead. But the majority noted there was other evidence to suggest the victim had left the motel room at some point and someone other than the defendant was also in the room:

​

The People's case thus rested on three pillars of circumstantial evidence: (1) the fact that defendant entered the hotel with the victim at approximately 7:00 p.m., some 15 hours before his dead body was found in the hotel room; (2) the fact that defendant repeatedly lied to the police when he said that he did not know the victim and had never met him; and (3) the fact that the victim's vehicle was found abandoned on a city street approximately six-tenths of a mile from defendant's residence.

 

... [D]efendant's presence in the room, although incriminating, is by no means conclusive considering that other people may have been in the room with the victim and that the Medical Examiner could not determine the time of death. As for defendant's lies to the police, it appears that he may not have been living as an openly gay man—he had a girlfriend and children from different women— and he may have said that he did not know the victim so as not to reveal his sexual orientation. Finally, although the presence of the vehicle so close to defendant's residence is suspicious, the victim was known to drive around the city looking for sexual partners ... . * * *

​

Although the police cannot be faulted for arresting defendant, nor the People for prosecuting him, the evidence at trial simply failed to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There are too many unanswered questions for us to be comfortable that the right person is serving a life sentence for the victim's murder.

 

From the dissent:  We agree with the implicit determination of our colleagues that there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of murder in the second degree  ... , but we respectfully disagree with their conclusion that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. People v Carter, 2018 NY Slip Op 00711, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

​

 

 

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE  (FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/STREET STOPS (FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE.

 

FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

​

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the arresting officer did not have cause to frisk the defendant, which revealed a weapon. The motion to suppress the weapon should have been granted. The officer had responded to a call about a shooting at a bar which described the suspect as a male Hispanic. The officer found a bullet fragment and some blood in a parking lot and he approached a group of people who were about 10 to 25 feet away. One person in the group appeared to the officer to be a male Hispanic. Someone in the group said they didn't hear or see anything. The officer then frisked the defendant, who is black, not Hispanic:

 

... [T]he police had an objective, credible reason to approach the group of five people in the parking lot and to request information in light of the report of a shooting at or near that location at some unidentified earlier time. Thus, we conclude that the police encounter was lawful at its inception... . The People correctly concede, however, that the officer's encounter with defendant constituted a level three forcible detention under the four-tiered De Bour framework ..., and thus required "a reasonable suspicion that [defendant] was involved in a felony or misdemeanor" ... .

 

We conclude that, "[b]ecause of the lack of correspondence between defendant's appearance and the description of the suspected [shooter that was] transmitted to the officer[] . . . , the officer[] had no basis for concluding that the reported crime had been committed by defendant" ... . "Nor can the [frisk of defendant] and seizure of the gun be justified as having been in the interests of the officer['s] safety, since there was no testimony that the officer[] believed defendant to be carrying a weapon" ... ,and the People presented no other evidence establishing that the officer had reason to fear for his safety ... . People v Roberts, 2018 NY Slip Op 00725, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, SUPPRESSION, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LEGAL POSSESSION, CRIMINAL LAW, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL POSSESSION (LANDLORD-TENANT,  ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/EVICTION (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, LEGAL POSSESSION, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, LANDLORD-TENANT.

​

ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT).

​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, in a matter of first impression, determined the defendant did not have standing to move to suppress firearms found in his bedroom in an apartment. Defendant had been living with the family who leased the apartment. Based on failure to pay rent, the marshal changed the locks, leaving the possessions inside, thereby tendering "legal possession" of the apartment to the landlord. Answering a complaint of trespass, police officers entered the apartment and found one of the family members who had been renting it inside. The police searched the apartment and seized several handguns in defendant's room. The defendant argued that the People did not demonstrate the eviction (legal possession) had been done legally, and therefore he had standing to move to suppress. But the Second Department noted that defendant, who had relied on the evidence presented by the People, did not demonstrate the eviction (legal possession) was illegal and therefore did not meet his burden of proof on that issue. The defendant also argued that he had an expectation of privacy in the bedroom at the time it was searched. But the Second Department determined once the legal possession was accomplished, defendant had no right to enter the apartment, and therefore had no expectation of privacy in his former bedroom:

​

... [T]he defendant, to establish his standing, relied on the evidence presented by the People regarding the execution of the warrant of eviction.... [W]hile the defendant is correct that the "Marshal's Legal Possession" letter did not establish that the legal possession had been obtained legally, it likewise did not establish that the legal possession had been obtained illegally.

 

... [T]he defendant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that he had standing to challenge the search of his former bedroom and seizure of the guns and ammunition based upon the alleged illegality of the legal possession ... . * * *

​

Here, the legal possession gave the landlord the right to possess the apartment and remove the tenants and occupants. Although their belongings remained in the apartment, thereby necessarily creating a bailment, the tenants and occupants no longer had a legal right to possess or control the subject apartment, nor to enter or remain therein. Given that the defendant had no legal right to possess or control the subject apartment after the landlord was given legal possession thereof, any subjective expectation of privacy he manifested in the bedroom which he had occupied in the apartment was not objectively reasonable ... . People v McCullum, 2018 NY Slip Op 00570, Second Dept 1-31-18

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (DEPORTATION, COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION CRIMINAL LAW, COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))

 

CRIMINAL LAW, IMMIGRATION.

​

COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).

​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant should be afforded the opportunity to move to vacate his guilty plea because the court did not inform him of the deportation consequences. Although the probation report indicated defendant was not a US citizen and was undocumented, the defendant, who had a history of mental illness, told the court, when asked, the he was a US citizen. The First Department held that all defendants must be informed of the deportation consequences for non-citizens:

​

In People v Peque (22 NY3d 168 [2013]...), the Court of Appeals held that before accepting a plea, due process requires that a court "apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony" ... . The Court reasoned that "fundamental fairness . . . requires a trial court to make a noncitizen defendant aware of the risk of deportation because deportation frequently results from a noncitizen's guilty plea and constitutes a uniquely devastating deprivation of liberty" ... . Accordingly, "a noncitizen defendant convicted of a removable crime can hardly make a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action'" unless informed of the possibility of deportation ... .

 

Defendant's statement to the court that he was a citizen did not absolve the court of its obligations pursuant to Peque. Notably, Peque did not condition the need to give this warning on whether or not the court has reason to believe the defendant is not a citizen. The warning mandated by Peque is required whether the defendant is a citizen or not. Indeed, the Court of Appeals recognized that in order to protect the rights of the large number of noncitizen defendants pleading guilty to felonies in the state, it was necessary to "make all defendants aware that, if they are not United States citizens," pleading guilty to a felony might lead to deportation ... . People v Palmer, 2018 NY Slip Op 00638, First Dept 2-1-18

​

​