Appellate Review of a Joined Indictment with One Plea

In People v. Holz (4th Dept. 12/21/2018), the Fourth Department refused to review a suppression ruling of the lower court on a count in an indictment that did not have a final judgment, when the defendant had pleaded guilty to a related count in the same indictment.

At the trial level, the defendant was convicted of Burglary 2°. The indictment was for 2 different burglary incidents, on October 1, 2014 and October 3, 2014, and the defendant pleaded guilty to the October 1 incident, satisfying the both counts of the indictment. At the appellate level, the defendant was seeking suppression of jewelry recovered from a police stop that took place on October 3. The defendant did not plead guilty, nor was he convicted of the October 3 burglary.

The Court’s inability to do anything regarding the defendant’s contention is rooted in the limited nature of appellate jurisdiction. The majority cited a First Department case for the contention that “the judgment of conviction on appeal did not ensue from the denial of the motion to suppress, and the latter is, therefore, not reviewable” pursuant to CPL 710.70 (2). The issue the Court was faced with is not whether the lack of suppression is harmless, but whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the ruling at all.

The majority followed the precedents of its three sister departments in holding that a defendant may not plead guilty to one count of an indictment and then appeal the denial of a suppression motion of another count in which no judgement was rendered but was covered by the plea.

Presiding Justice Whalen dissented, because he found that the majority adopted too strict of an interpretation of CPL 710.70 (2). He noted that the defendants conviction did follow as a consequence or result of the suppression, and therefore, the majority ignored the plain meaning of the statutory language. (JC/LC)

Prosecutorial Misconduct: How Much Warrants Reversal

In People v. Fick (4th Dept. 12/21/2018), the Fourth Department found that a prosecutor’s cross-examination of a witness regarding inadmissible evidence constituted proper misconduct; however, the majority did not find that it was enough to constitute a reversal of the defendant’s convictions.

At the lower court, the defendant was convicted of Burglary 1°, Grand Larceny 4°, and Unlawful Imprisonment 1°. The defendant made several contentions on appeal that were rejected by the Court. The Court found that the evidence did support a conviction and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

The defendant also contended that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor. However, during trial he did not object to any alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct, so this contention was not preserved for appeal. The Court still looked into the merits of this claim; however, it found that on the whole it failed because all the comments made by the prosecutor were fair.

Nevertheless, the Court agreed with the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of propriety by cross-examining a defense witness regarding an uncharged crime that the defendant allegedly committed and by placing his credibility at issue in doing so. The Court held that in this case, the prosecutor strayed outside the four corners of evidence and the jury should be deciding a case solely on the evidence.

Despite this finding by the Court, it held that reversal was not warranted. This is because the Court found that the error had not substantially prejudiced the defendant’s trial. The dissenting judges pointed out that this very prosecutor had been admonished before on appeal. However, the admonishment had occurred after the trial in this case. The Court noted that although it strongly condemned the prosecutor’s conduct, it did not find it warranted reversal.

The defendant also contended that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to the lack of objection to these prosecutorial errors. The Court rejected his claim.

The dissenting judges agreed with the majority that the defendant’s contention was valid, but they opined that the prosecutor did cause substantial prejudice to the defendant. Further, they stated that the prosecutor’s remarks during summation were inflammatory and prejudicial to the defendant. For these reasons, the dissenters wrote that they could conclude that absent such misconduct, the same result would have been reached. (JC/LC)

Wrong Advice and Lack of Support By Defense Counsel Leads to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

In People v. Griffith (4th Dept. 11/9/2018), the Fourth Department found that the defendant had been denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney refused to assist him in appealing his denied petition for a downward modification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The defendant claimed in his petition that he was entitled to a downward modification of his previously-imposed classification as a level three risk pursuant to Correction Law §168-o(2). The court initially found that the defendant’s claim on appeal arises under CPLR 5701 not under Correction Law §168-o(2).

When the defendant moved forward with his petition, his assigned counsel wrote a letter to the court indicating that the petition was meritless and that he would not support the petition. Additionally, he advised the defendant to withdraw the petition so that defendant would not delay his right to file a new modification petition in two years. But the defendant’s counsel was wrong. Under Correction Law §168-o(2) a defendant may file a petition “no more than once annually.”

The Court concluded that by refusing to support the defendant’s petition and giving him incorrect advice, there was ineffective assistance of counsel because the defendant’s attorney essentially became a witness against the defendant and took a position adverse to him. (MK/LC)

“Dangerous Contraband”: What is it?

In People v. Flagg (4th Dept. 11/16/2018), the Fourth Department considered a defendant’s appeal despite the lack of preservation and expounded upon what constitutes “dangerous contraband” in a prison.

At the lower court, the defendant was convicted  by a jury of Promoting Prison Contraband 1° and CPCS 7°. These convictions arose after correction officers obtained a disposable glove containing four Tramadol pills from the defendant’s possession, while he was incarcerated at a local jail.

For the crime of Promoting Prison Contraband 1º, the People were required to prove that the defendant was (1) confined in a detention facility, and (2) knowingly and unlawfully made, obtained, or possessed any “dangerous contraband.” Dangerous contraband is defined by the Penal Law as “contraband which is capable of such use as may endanger the safety or security of a detention facility or any person therein.” The test that the Court of Appeals developed in People v. Finley to determine whether a substance is dangerous 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.”

On appeal, the defendant contended that there was legally insufficient evidence to establish that the Tramadol pills were “dangerous.” Although defense counsel moved for a dismissal, the Court noted that this was not enough to preserve the issue for review, but considered the defendant’s appeal in the interest of justice.

The People presented testimony from corrections officers that the pills were dangerous because inmates will fight over the drugs and inmates will also get high and try to fight the staff, or attack other inmates. Additionally, a Sheriff’s detective testified that if not prescribed to the person who was taking the pills, it could cause the person who ingested the pill’s death.

The Court found that this testimony was only discussing broad penological concerns and was speculative and conclusory. The evidence did not establish a substantial probability of a major threat to the facility, or death or serious injury. Specifically, the Court found that there was no specific evidence regarding the dosage of Tramadol or what it would do if ingested by an individual. Thus, the Court found that the People did not establish the “dangerousness” of the pills possessed by the defendant and therefore, the convicted should be reduced to Promoting Prison Contraband 2°.

Further, the Court noted that drugs in it of themselves are not inherently dangerous and the specific use and effects are necessary to show whether or not a drug is dangerous. The Court stated the determination of what types and quantities of drugs are considered dangerous is best left to the legislature. (JC)

Old Enough to Know Better, But Not Enough to Warrant a 35-Year Sentence

The Fourth Department in People v. Jones (4th Dept. 11/9/2018) considered whether it should, in its discretion, override the lower court’s decision on two matters: (1) whether the defendant should have been sentenced as a youth offender or as an adult, and (2) whether the sentence imposed was too harsh and excessive. The Court ultimately used its authority to amend the lower court’s decision on the second count in the “interest of justice.”

The defendant was convicted of Assault 1º and two counts of CPW 2º; he committed the crimes when he was 18 years old. Although CPL 720.10(3) provides that “a youth who has been convicted of an armed felony offense . . . is an eligible youth if the court determines that one or more of the following factors exist: (i) mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed; or (ii) where the defendant was not the sole participant in the crime, the defendant’s participation was relatively minor although not so minor as to constitute a defense to the prosecution.” Therefore, the only relevant mitigating factors related to a CPL 720.10(3), or “eligible youth,” inquiry revolve around the circumstances of the crime itself, such as “a lack of injury to others or evidence that the defendant did not display a weapon during the crime.” Here, the Fourth Department affirmed the lower court’s decision in trying the defendant as an adult rather than an eligible youth because he carried a loaded gun on several occasions and shot a gang member.

Although the Court decided that trying the defendant as an adult was just, it determined that the 35-year sentence imposed on the defendant was too harsh. As a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the Fourth Department modified the defendant’s sentence to run for an aggregate term of 25 years. The Court contemplated multiple factors in deciding to reduce the sentence; the defendant’s lack of a criminal record, the fact that the victim was attempting to commit an armed robbery of the defendant’s gang members, and the fact that the People offered a plea constituting a 20-year sentence all contributed to the Court’s decision to impose a more lax sentence.

Two judges dissented to the second part of the majority’s opinion; they did not believe the Court should amend the sentence in any way. This decision was not necessary in the “interest of justice.” Although the dissent noted the defendant’s low intellect and rough childhood, it was of paramount significance that the defendant was a dangerous individual who was known to carry a loaded gun. Thus, he should be “locked up for a long time.”