· People v Banah (KA 07-00949) – Trial court’s denial of request for substitution of counsel was proper without further inquiry. D’s request was not based on “good cause” because D merely disagreed with counsel’s advice that D accept a favorable plea offer.· People v Curry (KA 09-00286) – D sent a series of threatening letters to ex-girlfriend, her mother, and his teenage daughter. He was convicted of aggravated harassment and aggravated criminal contempt. Court properly admitted letters D previously wrote (and which were the subject of previous convictions) to establish his identity.
· People v Everett (KA 07-02580) – Evidence found legally insufficient to convict D of assault second (PL § 120.05 [3]) because police officer was not undertaking a lawful duty when he patted down motorist who was asked to exit vehicle because he did not have valid identification. Officer had no reasonable grounds to suspect he was in danger nor did he have probable cause to believe D had committed a crime (rather than just a traffic infraction).
· People v Ferenchack (KA 09-00595) – Misdemeanor information for second degree criminal contempt found jurisdictionally defective because it did not allege that D had knowledge of the order of protection he was accused of violating.
· People v Knight (KA 09-02476) – Judgment modified by striking Wayne County Court’s oral directive that defendant never again enter Wayne County or travel within 50 miles of the victim’s home.
· People v Monroe (KA 10-00061) – Police had probable cause to arrest D based on information provided by confidential informant who purchased drugs from D. Reliability requirement of Aguilar-Spinelli test was met by the police’s observation of the drug transactions. Basis of knowledge requirement met because CI participated in drug transactions. Court erred in ordering restitution because county was not a “victim” of the crime as defined by Penal Law § 60.27 (4) (b).
· People v Rivers (KA 07-01060) – Evidence of uncharged acts of physical abuse to which the victim was subjected and acts witnessed by the victim were admissible “to explain the victim’s failure to reveal the ongoing sexual assaults.” Court’s proper weighing of probative value against potential for prejudice of this evidence was apparent by court’s preclusion of evidence of other acts. Also, a limiting instruction was provided to the jury.
· People v Rodriguez (KA 10-01100) – Off-duty officer who was working security at a bar escorted unruly patron (D) out of the bar. As D was walking toward a car, the officer heard him say gun in Spanish. He then called on-duty officer, who arrived and approached D as he was getting inside the car to ask him “just how’s it going” and for ID. D said he had something in his pocket but it was not his. Officer saw oddly-shaped sock that looked more like a firearm. The officer pulled on the sock and it felt like a handgun. Trial court granted suppression motion. 4AD reversed, holding that officer had an objective credible reason to approach D, which was enough for a level one De Bour intrusion.
· People v Washington (KA 09-00403) – D moved to dismiss indictment on the basis that the integrity of the grand jury proceeding was impaired and D was “possibly prejudiced” because the grand jury’s foreperson was D’s ex-girlfriend’s father or other close relative, and D and ex-girlfriend were previously parties to an order of protection. Lower court erred by denying motion without holding a hearing (see CPL 210.45 [6]).
· People v Wester (KA 08-00122) – Counsel’s failure to make any arguments in favor of D at sentencing was not ineffective assistance. D did not show that counsel’s arguments would have had any impact on the Court’s sentencing decision. D also argued that counsel made statements adverse to D when D filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Even if the statements were adverse, this was not ineffective assistance of counsel because the record established that the Court’s rejection of D’s motion was not influenced by counsel’s statements.
No comments:
Post a Comment