CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Category Archives — Page 5 of 23 — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

New York Appellate Court Upholds 25-Year Sentence, Rejects Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim

December 24, 2017 | Tilem & Associates

There are a wide variety of issues that can be raised on appeal following a criminal charge and criminal sentencing. One of the issues that can be raised is ineffective assistance of counsel. In this type of appeal, which generally is raised not by an appeal but by a motion to vacate a conviction under CPL 440.10, the defendant is arguing that his or her attorney failed to render competent legal counsel and that this failure had a dispositive outcome in his or her case. As seasoned New York criminal lawyers, we understand how critical it is to provide clients with responsive, dedicated, and knowledgeable legal counsel.

A recent appellate opinion discusses when a conviction can be overturned for ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant was accused of sexual abuse of a minor. At trial, the victim testified regarding the alleged abuse, stating that the abuse occurred for many years and that she had informed a number of individuals, including two officers, regarding the incidences. Following the victim’s testimony, the defendant’s counsel did not seek a limiting instruction from the court requesting that the minor’s statements regarding previous disclosures should not be considered in determining whether or not her testimony was true.

The prosecution called each of the individuals whom the victim had allegedly informed of the abuse. Defense counsel objected at each point at which the prosecution attempted to elicit an answer regarding what the victim disclosed to each witness. The prosecution then called a child sex abuse expert witness to testify regarding her examination of the victim. The expert witness testified that the victim had informed her of the abuse, and defense counsel objected. The doctor also testified that there were no physical signs of sexual abuse, but this conclusion did not foreclose the possibility that abuse occurred. In closing arguments, the prosecution stated that the victim should be believed based on her prior consistent statements and the testimony from each witness regarding the victim’s communications regarding the abuse. Ultimately, the defendant was sentenced to 25 years in prison. The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling, and the defendant appealed.

New York Appellate Court Reverses Sentence Based on Violation of Defendant’s Right to Be Present at Sentencing Hearing

December 16, 2017 | Peter Howard Tilem

New York has enacted certain laws that are designed to protect a defendant’s rights during criminal prosecutions and sentencing. As seasoned New York criminal defense lawyers, we are well versed in these procedural rules and understand how important it is to ensure that our clients receive the fair and equitable treatment that they deserve. One of these rules requires that a defendant be present at the time a sentence against him or her is pronounced. A recent New York appellate opinion discusses whether this rule applies to the re-imposition of an original sentence.

The background of the case is as follows. The defendant entered a guilty plea to a manslaughter charge and attempted murder charge in 2001. As a result, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for each count, to be served concurrently. At the sentencing hearing, the judge did not mention post-release supervision. It was also omitted from the sentence and commitment order.

In 1998, New York legislators voted to require a mandatory period of post-release supervision for any determinate state prison sentence. Failing to notify the defendant of this term during the plea provided a basis for a defendant to move to vacate a plea. Subsequently, New York courts concluded that any defendant who enters a guilty plea must be informed of the consequences, including the imposition of post-release supervision. The New York Legislature voted to enact an exception to this requirement. Under the law, the notification requirement only applied to determinate sentences imposed between September 1, 1998, and June 30, 2008. Furthermore, the notification must only be provided if a statutorily required PRS term was not pronounced verbally during a sentencing hearing. Stated differently, the law allows the court to re-impose an original determinative sentence without a term of post-release supervision.

New York Appellate Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Rejects Defendant’s Challenge to Voluntariness of Confession

December 14, 2017 | Tilem & Associates

New York Criminal Defense Lawyers need to be aware of the countless procedural rules that are absolutely essential to follow in order to ensure that you protect your rights at every step of a criminal investigation or prosecution in addition to the substantive law. At Tilem & Associates, our diligent team of New York homicide defense lawyers has substantial experience and knowledge when it comes to these procedural rules and navigating the courtroom. A recent New York appellate opinion illustrates there are countless rules that apply to how law enforcement can secure a confession from a witness.

In the case, the defendant was convicted of murder, attempted robbery, and burglary. The defendant was not originally a suspect in the matter, but throughout their investigation, the detectives identified inconsistent information in statements that the defendant provided to the police. The police brought the defendant in for questioning, which lasted for several hours during the course of three days. The defendant implicated two other individuals in the crimes and ultimately confessed to murdering two victims, ages 21 and 18 respectively, who were siblings and who lived together in an apartment in Queens.

The events giving rise to the murders involved one of the victims phoning the defendant, who was her ex-boyfriend, and asking for help. The authorities were eventually called to the apartment, where the defendant was waiting. The detectives collected a broad spectrum of evidence from the scene of the crime and conducted multiple interviews of persons related to the incident who potentially had information. The defendant was one of the people who were initially interviewed, even though he was not listed as a suspect at first. By the end of the investigation, he was charged with six counts of murder, among other things.

New York Appellate Court Upholds Lower Court’s Decision to Relieve Defendant’s Attorney Based on Conflict of Interest Issues

December 9, 2017 | Tilem & Associates

Ensuring that you have the right attorney handling your claim and representing your interests is critically important. At Tilem & Associates, our seasoned team of New York gun crime lawyers has handled countless matters involving criminal investigations and prosecutions. This means we not only feel confident in the courtroom but also understand the many different procedural and substantive aspects of your matter. As a recent New York appellate opinion demonstrates, it is essential to ensure that you have addressed all potential procedural issues as soon as possible.

The background of the case is as follows. The defendant brandished a firearm in front of a friend that was secured in his waistband and threatened to use it on another individual. He then went to a park, where he was seen near a specific individual. The police arrived, and the defendant and the individual fled in separate directions. Multiple witnesses testified to seeing defendant throw the gun, which was later located by the police. The police also found drugs, which the other individual admitted to owning. The defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon and resisting arrest. The other individual was charged with drug possession.

A public defender was assigned to the defendant’s claim. Roughly eight months later, the prosecution provided evidence showing that another public defender represented the other individual on his criminal charges stemming from this same set of facts. The attorney for the defendant stated that he intended to use the other individual as a potential witness for the defense before he learned about the potential conflict of interest. The defendant indicated that he wanted the public defender to continue representing him even though the attorney indicated that it may not be ethical for him to do so because another attorney in his office represented the other individual.

New York Appellate Court Orders New Trial in Case Involving Improper Admission of Hearsay Evidence Involving DNA Testing

November 12, 2017 | Tilem & Associates

Knowing which evidence can be used against you in a New York criminal trial or prosecution is critically important to ensuring that you receive fair treatment. At Tilem & Associates, our seasoned New York criminal defense lawyers have counseled numerous residents on their rights and assisted them with ensuring that the prosecution plays by the rules. A recent appellate opinion demonstrates the complexity that can often arise with evidentiary issues, especially when it comes to DNA evidence.

In the case, the appellate court was asked to consider whether a defendant’s constitutional right to confront persons who offer testimony against him was violated by the admission of DNA evidence by a witness who did not supervise or generate the DNA evidence. The defendant was charged with a number of offenses stemming from three burglaries. The first burglary involved a dry cleaning store and a number of other stores that were connected through a common basement. The defendant was seen on surveillance footage in the stores, and the police took swabs of streaks of blood that they identified on the rear door of the building. The swabs were sent to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) for DNA analysis.

The second incident involved a home furnishings store. The police located a receipt covered in blood near a check-out stand, which they also sent to OCME for DNA analysis. Eventually, the DNA evidence from the two burglaries was matched with the defendant’s DNA profile that was stored in the database. During trial, the prosecution called one witness from OCME to testify about the DNA evidence. The witness testified about the DNA evidence based on his review or reports that other lab technicians had prepared and about other test results that he did not run himself. The defendant objected at several points throughout the testimony, stating that the prosecution was actually eliciting evidence from witnesses who were not going to testify at trial, i.e., the technicians who performed the other tests and DNA analyses. Ultimately, the trial court allowed the witness to testify in a conclusory and general fashion regarding the evidence without personal knowledge of the tests and analyses, including the DNA profile generated from the swabbing of the defendant.

New York Appellate Court Reverses Decision Upon Finding of Judicial Bias and Impropriety

October 31, 2017 | Tilem & Associates

One of the most confusing aspects of a New York criminal case for defendants and suspects to navigate is the procedural rules that apply. There are countless procedural rules that apply in criminal cases, which are primarily designed to ensure a fair proceeding and to provide the parties with fair notice about certain decisions, hearings, and events related to the claim. As New York DWI lawyers, we pride ourselves on staying current with procedural changes and ensuring that our clients’ rights are protected at each step of the legal process. Failing to make objections to procedural errors or to hold the prosecution accountable can have dire consequences for a defendant’s rights.In a recent appellate opinion, the defendant was charged with driving while impaired. In response to the charges, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss after his arraignment. The judge presiding over the motion denied the defendant’s request, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. A bench trial is a trial that is conducted before a judge without a jury. The same judge who presided over the initial motion presided over the bench trial. Ultimately, the judge found the defendant guilty and issued a sentence against him in response to the conviction.

The defendant appealed the conviction. The matter was heard by the same judge who presided over the pretrial motion and the bench trial. Between the time of the conviction and the defendant’s appeal, the judge was elected to the appellate court. The judge reviewed the defendant’s appeal and upheld the conviction. The defendant appealed again, arguing that the judge should have recused himself from the appeal and that the judge’s failure to do so resulted in a reversible error.

New York Appellate Court Upholds Consecutive Sentencing in Burglary and Murder Conviction

October 18, 2017 | Tilem & Associates

Sentencing is one of the most challenging aspects of any trial, and perhaps the most critical part of the legal process when it comes to how significantly the matter will affect the defendant’s future. At Tilem & Associates, our seasoned New York criminal defense lawyers assist defendants with ensuring that they receive no greater a sentence than they deserve. As a recent appellate opinion demonstrates, having a knowledgeable attorney in your corner can make all of the difference.

In the appeal, the defendant asked the court to review whether there was a sufficient legal basis for imposing consecutive sentences. The defendant was charged with a number of crimes, including burglary in the first degree and murder in the second degree. The defendant was accused of breaking into his ex-girlfriend’s home and stabbing her with a kitchen knife. Although the defendant admitted to causing the victim’s death, he asserted a defense indicating that he was under an extreme emotional disturbance.

Ultimately, the defendant was convicted of two counts of burglary and intentional murder. During sentencing, the prosecution contended that consecutive sentences were appropriate, due to the evidence presented regarding the brutal nature of the murder, which involved the defendant dragging the victim down a flight of stairs and stabbing her at least 38 times. Specifically, the prosecution noted that the defendant caused injuries to the victim on two separate occasions: when he dragged her out of bed upstairs, and when he inflicted fatal wounds on her downstairs with the knife. In response, the defendant argued that consecutive sentences were inappropriate because the crimes constituted one continuing sequence of events that the defendant had formulated prior to breaking into the victim’s home.

VACATING A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL PURSUANT TO CPL 440.10 – A COURT MAY VACATE A CONVICTION IF THE KEY WITNESS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT LIED AT TRIAL ABOUT PRIOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND OTHER BAD ACTS

October 12, 2017 | Peter Howard Tilem

In New York one may file a motion to vacate a conviction even after an appeal was denied. A person convicted of a criminal offense after a trial who has exhausted his appeals may still file what is commonly referred to as a “440” motion back in the original court where he was convicted. Many times “440” motions are based upon newly discovered evidence.

Briefly, under CPL 440.10(1)(g), a court may vacate a conviction where new evidence has been discovered after trial, which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial and such evidence creates a probability of an outcome more favorable to the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant must file his motion with due diligence after discovery of the new evidence.

Generally, however, such “new evidence” cannot be mere impeachment evidence. In other words, such newly discovered evidence cannot simply be evidence that could have impeached the credibility of a prosecution witness. However, this is not an absolute rule. A court can vacate a conviction where the “key” prosecution witness lies at trial about prior criminal activity or other bad acts committed by him prior to him testifying. In cases where courts have vacated convictions on such grounds, the witness who lied was the key or primary witness against the defendant and the case hinged on that witness’ credibility.

New York’s New Sealing Law Opens Up New Possibilities For Those With Old Criminal Convictions

October 10, 2017 | Peter Howard Tilem

New York’s new sealing law which authorizes the sealing of up to one felony conviction and two total convictions went into effect in New York last week and is already creating new possibilities for those with old criminal convictions. Up until recently a New York expungement law would be considered to be almost impossible. After all as experienced criminal defense lawyers there is rarely a week that goes by without a call from someone asking about “expunging” criminal convictions and we as attorneys were frustrated with what used to be the answer; that there was no way of sealing old criminal convictions in New York.

Like all the uncertainty surrounding all new laws no one really knows how impactful CPL 160.59 will be. One factor will be whether prosecutors routinely oppose applications to seal under CPL 160.59 or not. The other will be what types of hearings are used by the Court and lastly how generous will the Courts be in sealing old convictions.

Another question pertains to the use of prior alcohol related driving convictions to deny people driver’s licenses. The New York Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is currently applying a twenty-five year look back and denying those with three or more alcohol related driving convictions reinstatement of their driver’s licenses. These revocations are essentially turning into lifetime revocations. As we reported last month, our firm has already filed a lawsuit against DMV because we believe that prior DWI convictions cannot be used to deny people licenses if the Court (or the Department of Corrections) has issued a Certificate of Relief from Civil Disabilities or a Certificate of Good Conduct.

New York Appellate Court Affirms Denial of New Trial When Defendant Was Wearing Prison Clothes During Jury Selection

October 8, 2017 | Tilem & Associates

Jury selection is one of the most important aspects of any case. At Tilem Law Offices, our seasoned New York gun crime lawyers have handled countless voir dire selection processes and understand just what it takes to make sure that you receive a fair jury. As a recent appellate opinion indicates, even the clothes you are wearing during jury selection may have an impact on your legal rights.

In the case, the defendant was arrested while entering a vehicle that was reported stolen at gunpoint nearly two weeks before. The defendant was charged with both first-degree and second-degree robbery. Before the jury selection phase of the trial, the defendant noted that he was not wearing his own clothing and that he was not provided with a chance to contact his family. The defendant requested an adjournment, which was granted. The judge granted the adjournment to allow the defendant a chance to obtain plain clothes, as opposed to the orange correctional facilities jumpsuit that he was wearing. After the adjournment, the defendant returned wearing a plain black top but still wearing orange correctional facility-issued sweatpants. Since the defendant was seated at the end of a long table, and since the judge believed that the jury would not be able to see the defendant’s sweatpants, the judge denied the defendant’s request to postpone jury selection until he could obtain plain clothes.

The prospective jurors were asked whether they noticed anything about the defendant. One indicated noticing that the defendant was in a wheelchair, which the parties explained was irrelevant to the case. Six jury members were selected that day. On the next day, the defendant was wearing a suit, and the jury selection process continued. Testimony from the victim and the arresting officer was provided, and the jury returned a verdict convicting the defendant of both counts of robbery.