Recent Criminal Decisions of Interest In New York Criminal Cases- February 2008
People v. Lewis [2008 NY Slip Op 100200]
The Appellate Division Third Department announced that it will no longer follow the line of cases holding that a defendant’s challenge to the validity of a waiver of appeal is unpreserved for appellate review if the defense did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction.
People v. Williams [2008 NY Slip Op 100317]
In a unanimous decision the Appellate Division Third Department affirmed an order of the Supreme Court denying a defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005 on the ground that the defendant had been found to have committed numerous serious disciplinary infractions while incarcerated. In so doing, the Court chose to follow the First Department’s holding in People v. Paniagua (45 Ad3d at 107-108) and declined to follow the Second Department’s holding in People v. Sanders (936 AD3d 944 [2007])
People v. Stevens [2008 NY Slip Op 01319]
In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division Second Department affirmed an order of the County Court designating the defendant a level three sex offender having found no merit in the defendant’s argument that the assessment of points against him based upon the victim’s physical helplessness constituted improper “double counting” because he was also assessed points based upon the victim’s age.
.
People v. Dathan [2008 NY Slip Op 01369]
In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court decision denying a defendant’s motion for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act on the ground that at the time of the motion the defendant was less than three years away from being eligible for release on parole. [See also: People v. Dela Torre 2008 NY Slip Op 01160]
People v. Sumpter [2008 NY Slip Op 01376]
In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division Second Department reversed the County Court’s decision denying the defendant’s motion to suppress lineup identification testimony and ordered a new trial on the ground that defendant’s right to counsel was violated because the police held the lineup without first notifying defense counsel and affording her a reasonable opportunity to participate.
People v. Haggerty [2008 NY Slip Op 01166]
In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division Second Department affirmed a denial of a motion for a mistrial based on admission of a surveillance video that was slightly different from the version given to the defense prior to trial on the ground the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the delay in the production of the correct video.
People v. Tabor [2008 NY Slip Op 195] [KA 06-02794]
In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division Second Department reversed a second degree assault conviction and granted a new trial holding that the County Court erred in summarily denying the defendant’s request to proceed pro se. The Appellate Court found the request to proceed was: unequivocal and timely asserted; knowing and intelligent; and defendant had not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues.
People v. Revette [ 2008 NY Slip Op 100901]
In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division Third Department reversed an arson conviction and dismissed the indictment with leave to the People to represent on the grounds that one of the grand jurors was the wife of one of the sheriffs who investigated the alleged crime and testified before the grand jury. In rendering its decision, the Appellate Court relied heavily on the fact that the grand juror –despite having been asked- did not give an unequivocal statement of an ability to remain impartial. The court also relied on the fact that the significance of her vote could not be determined since the actual number of grand jurors voting to indict was not recorded.
People v. Haddock , Jr. [ 2008 NY Slip Op 100699]
In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division Third Department reversed a verdict convicting the defendant of two counts of failure to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The Appellate Court ruled that the County Court erred in refusing the defendant’s request that the jury charge include an instruction that the People needed to prove that he knowingly failed to comply with the SORA’s registration requirement. The Appellate Court did so even though the statute itself-Correction Law §168-t-does not expressly designate a mental state.
The decisions discussed above as well as other recent decisions can be found at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us /decisions/index.shtml
