Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to incest in the third degree. Prior to Defendant’s release from incarceration, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended that Defendant be classified as risk level three sex offender. The Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) court assessed Defendant points under risk factors one, five, and nine and adjudicated Defendant a risk level three sex offender. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the record supported the SORA court’s risk-level classification. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the People proved facts to support Defendant’s SORA risk-level classification by clear and convincing evidence. View "People v. Sincerbeaux" on Justia Law

In these three consolidated appeals, the Court of Appeals considered whether the trial courts abused their discretion in precluding cross-examination into allegations of a law enforcement officer’s prior misconduct made in an unrelated federal lawsuit. The Court of Appeals applied well-established rules governing the use of this type of impeachment material to the specific facts of these cases and affirmed the orders of the Appellate Division in two cases and reversed in the third case, holding that law enforcement witnesses should be treated in the same manner as any other prosecution witness for purposes of cross-examination. View "People v. Smith" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The county court sentenced Defendant, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of eight years’ imprisonment and three years of postrelease supervision. On appeal, Defendant argued that the county court erred in failing to hold a Darden hearing, as the information provided by a confidential informant (CI) was insufficient to establish probable cause to support a search warrant for his apartment. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a Darden hearing was unnecessary because reasonable cause for the search existed independently of the statements by the CI to the police. View "People v. Crooks" on Justia Law

Defendants in these two cases were convicted of criminal offenses in local courts. The courts were not designated by law as a court of record and did not have a court stenographer present during the proceedings. Defendants filed a notice of appeal and provided as the record a transcript produced from an electronic recording device employed by the court to record the trial proceedings. Defendants did not file an affidavit of errors. The People moved for dismissal, arguing that Defendants’ failure to file an affidavit of errors pursuant to N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 460.10 was a jurisdictional defect. The intermediate appellate courts come to opposite conclusions as to whether Defendants properly took their appeals within the meaning of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 460.10. The Court of Appeals reversed in one case and affirmed in the other, holding that, in accordance with the controlling statute, an affidavit of errors is a jurisdictional prerequisite for taking an appeal from a local criminal court where there is no court stenographer. View "People v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on charges of identity theft in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and theft of services. At several court appearances, the People requested adjournments. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment based on a violation of his statutory speedy trial rights. Supreme Court denied the motion. More than sixteen months after commencement of the criminal action, Defendant was convicted as charged. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by dismissing the identity theft count but otherwise affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Defendant was entitled to dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds, as (1) Defendant did not consent to additional delay attributable to court congestion, and (2) the People failed to announce readiness within the statutory time period. View "People v. Barden" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested after police officers found him in an apartment with three children and loose crack cocaine on a cabinet shelf. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law 260.20[1]. Defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the convictions because he was not the parent or guardian of the children and therefore had no relation to the children such that he could control whether the children remained in the apartment. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and vacated the judgment, holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that Defendant permitted the three children to remain in the apartment within the meaning of section 260.20[1]. View "People v. Berry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree robbery and sentenced to a twenty-year term of imprisonment. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, finding a majority of Defendant’s challenges on appeal unpreserved. Defendant appealed, arguing that errors made by the prosecution before the Grand Jury required dismissal of the indictment and that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to preserve these claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s challenges were not preserved; (2) defense counsel was not ineffective; and (3) Defendant’s remaining contentions were partially unpreserved and otherwise meritless. View "People v. Griggs" on Justia Law

In 2008, defendant was charged with attempted rape and was represented by his first attorney. Defendant retained his second attorney, Long, in 2009. Long represented defendant throughout a significant portion of the pre- and post-indictment proceedings, including plea negotiations and a Huntley hearing. In September 2009, defendant fired Long and retained a third attorney, who represented him for the remainder of the prosecution. Defendant was convicted and subsequently made successive CPL 440.10 motions to vacate the conviction based on newly discovered evidence relating to the credibility of witnesses. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and the denial of both CPL 440 motions. In 2014, defendant moved to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, asserting that attorney Long had simultaneously represented the Albany County District Attorney Soares, that evidence of the conflict was newly discovered, that his conviction was obtained in violation of his right to counsel, that the conviction was based on misrepresentation or fraud by the prosecutor, and that Long had provided ineffective assistance. Four months before defendant retained Long, Long had written a letter in connection with Soares' reelection campaign, asking the Board of Elections asking to examine the machine ballots. In 2011-2012, Long was counsel of record for Soares in a disciplinary proceeding and in Soares' divorce. County Court denied the motion without a hearing. The Appellate Division and New York Court of Appeals affirmed, determining that there was no support for the assertion that there was an actual conflict and that defendant failed to show that any potential conflict had operated on the defense. View "People v Wright" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for two counts of burglary in the second degree. The court rejected defendant's claim that his trial attorney was ineffective where the record on direct appeal is devoid of any indication that counsel could have presented a colorable argument challenging the legality of the traffic stop. Assuming a colorable challenge to the legality of the frisk incident to defendant's detention could be grounded in this record, counsel may have made a legitimate strategic decision not to move to suppress. The court rejected defendant's contention that counsel failed to provide meaningful representation at sentencing. The court considered defendant's remaining arguments regarding counsel's performance and concluded that they are without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Carver" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with gang assault in the first degree. Subsequently at trial, the court polled the jury and accepted the verdict without responding to the notes sent during recess or inquiring whether the jurors still desired a response to those notes. Counsel did not object to this procedure. Defendant was found guilty. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. The court held that where counsel has meaningful notice of the content of a jury note and of the trial court's response, or lack thereof, to that note, the court's alleged violation of the meaningful response requirement does not constitute a mode of proceedings error, and counsel is required to preserve any claim of error for appellate review. The court rejected defendant's remaining contentions. Accordingly, the court reversed and remitted for further consideration. View "People v Mack" on Justia Law