Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant testified at a grand jury proceeding against his brother and received transactional immunity but subsequently refused to testify at his brother's trial. The court cited Defendant for contempt and ordered him to be taken into custody. Defendant’s brother’s trial ended in an acquittal, and Defendant was released from custody. Thereafter, the People charged Defendant with two counts of criminal attempt in the second degree for his refusal to testify at his brother’s trial. City Court dismissed the charges on double jeopardy grounds. County Court affirmed, concluding that the prior contempt proceedings were criminal in nature because the court ordered Defendant’s confinement, and in so doing relied on language in the criminal contempt provisions of the Judiciary Law. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that where a court subjects a defendant to conditional imprisonment in an attempt to compel the defendant to testify and does not otherwise adjudicate the defendant to be in criminal contempt or impose punishment that is criminal in nature, double jeopardy will not bar a subsequent prosecution for contempt under the Penal Law. View "People v. Sweat" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on one count of predatory sexual assault against a child for engaging in two or more acts of sexual conduct with the Complainant, who was less than thirteen years old. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. Defendant appealed, arguing that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s references to the Complainant’s prior consistent statements disclosing the abuse and by the trial court’s ruling that Defendant’s mother was precluded from testifying about an allegedly prior inconsistent statement made by the Complainant. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he made these evidentiary rulings, as (1) the challenged testimony was admissible for the nonhearsay purpose of explaining to the jury how and when the sexual abuse came to light; and (2) Defendant’s mother’s proffered testimony was inadmissible hearsay not subject to any exception. View "People v. Ludwig" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging her with attempted murder in the second degree with the understanding that the county court would impose a fifteen-year term of imprisonment. The county court imposed the sentence promised at the plea, plus five years of postrelease supervision (PRS). The court failed to mention the period of PRS at the plea hearing but did mention the period of PRS during the sentencing proceeding. Defendant appealed, arguing that her plea was involuntary. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that because Defendant had the opportunity to object to the imposition of PRS but failed to do so before sentencing was imposed, her challenge was unpreserved. The Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the plea, holding (1) a trial court must notify a defendant of a term of PRS sufficiently in advance of its imposition that the defendant has the opportunity to object to the deficiency in the plea proceeding; and (2) in the absence of a sufficient opportunity to object, preservation is unnecessary. View "People v. Turner" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees, criminal possession of marihuana, and two counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia. The Appellate Division modified the judgment and reversed the convictions on the counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance, concluding that the trial court erred in charging the jury on Defendant’s knowing criminal possession of drugs under the “drug factory” presumption of N.Y. Penal Law 220.25(2) because Defendant was not within “close proximity” to the controlled substances at the time the substances were found. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court erred in charging that jury on the presumption under section 220.25(2) because Defendant was not within close proximity to the drugs found in his apartment once he exited the premises and entered his car, and no evidence suggested that he was in immediate flight from the premises in an attempt to escape an arrest; and (2) the error was not harmless, and a new trial should be granted on the counts of the indictment for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees. View "People v. Kims" on Justia Law

Defendant retained attorney Martineau to represent him on several criminal charges. When Martineau’s health declined, Defendant’s file was delivered to attorney Bruno. A week before trial was due to begin, Bruno moved, unsuccessfully, to adjourn the trial date. Bruno renewed his motion one day before trial, again without success. Defendant was found guilty of all charges. Defendant moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that the county court’s denial of the motions for adjournment violated his right to the retained attorney of his choice. The county court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that when Defendant moved, through counsel, for adjournment, the county court was not obliged to inquire of Defendant whether he was in fact seeking new counsel. View "People v. O'Daniel" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of attempted second degree murder, two counts of first degree assault, assault in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and related counts. Defendant appealed, arguing that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a charge permitting, but not requiring, the jury to infer that the content of a tape from a video surveillance camera trained upon the location of the altercation would not have been favorable to the prosecution. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was not a reasonable probability that the jury, if offered the opportunity, would have chosen to draw an inference adverse to the prosecution as to what the missing video would have shown, and therefore, Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice attributable to counsel’s inadequacy. View "People v. Blake" on Justia Law

Defendant was serving a sentence for his robbery conviction when he was interviewed in the absence of counsel regarding a murder. Before Defendant was interviewed about the murder, the lawyer who represented Defendant in the robbery indicated to law enforcement officers that he no longer represented Defendant. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to the murder. Defendant moved to set aside his conviction, arguing that the interview violated his right to counsel because he gave his statement outside the presence of his counsel. The county court denied the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the officers’ questioning of Defendant did not violate the rule that, once an attorney has entered the proceeding, the defendant cannot be questioned in the absence of counsel unless he waives his right to counsel in the attorney’s presence, because the police reasonably concluded, after talking to the lawyer at issue, that he was no longer Defendant’s counsel. View "People v. McLean" on Justia Law

After hearing gunshots in an apartment building, police officers pursued Defendant into an apartment, searched the apartment, and located Defendant and his cohort hiding under a bed. Defendant was placed under placed in handcuffs, after which one officer entered another bedroom in the apartment and found a silver box on the floor. The officer opened the box and discovered a gun. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence from the warrantless search of the box. The suppression court concluded that the search of the box was improper because the exigent circumstances that justified the officers’ entry into the apartment had abated once Defendant was handcuffed and secured. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the warrantless search for the gun was justified. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the People failed to meet the burden of establishing that the exigencies of the situation justified the warrantless search. View "People v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

The Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 (DLRA) denies remedial resentencing to offenders serving sentences for “exclusion offenses,” including offenses for which a merit time allowance is not available. At issue in this case was whether the resentencing exclusion applies to all offenders who are ineligible to receive a merit time allowance pursuant to N.Y. Correct. Law 803(1)(d), including those who cannot receive those allowances solely by virtue of their recidivist sentencing adjudications. Defendant, who was sentenced as a persistent felony offender, filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to the DLRA. The Court of Appeals held (1) the exclusion applies only to offenders who have been convicted of certain serious crimes that automatically render merit time allowances unavailable under N.Y. Correct. Law 803(1)(d)(ii), and therefore, an offender who has no such conviction may be resentenced, notwithstanding his adjudication as a persistent felony offender; and (2) because Defendant had never been convicted of any of the crimes which eliminate the possibility of a merit time allowance under section 803(1)(d)(ii), and Defendant met all other eligiblity criteria under the DLRA, Defendant was eligible for resentencing. View "People v. Coleman" on Justia Law

These four cases involved criminal appeals that were not pursued for more than a decade after the filing of a notice of appeal. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal in each case. The Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the dismissals in three of the cases, as the procedure followed in these cases did not deny the defendants of any constitutional right, nor did the Appellate Division abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeals; and (2) remitted the fourth case to the Appellate Division so that counsel could be appointed to represent the defendant in opposing the dismissal of his appeal, as the Appellate Division erred in denying this defendant’s appeal before assigning him counsel on that appeal and giving counsel a chance to review the record.View "People v. Perez" on Justia Law