June 21, 2010

New Jersey: Report of the Special Master on Eyewitness Testimony is Released

Retired New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Geoffrey Gaulkin released his report in State v. Henderson today June 21, 2010. . The New Jersey Supreme Court appointed judge Gaulkin in May 2009 to serve as special master and to hold hearings and issue a report "to test the validity of our state law standards on the admissibility of eyewitness identification." According to news comments, the report suggests that eyewitness testimony should be treated more like physical evidence and be subjected to pretrial hearings to assess how reliable it is.

According to a June 21, 2010 New York Times article " Use of Eyewitnesses in New Jersey Courts Needs Change, Ex-Judge Says" by Richard PÉREZ-PEÑA, the report recommends that"Courts should do more to gauge the accuracy of witnesses to crimes, and to let juries know how flawed their testimony can be, according to a former appellate judge assigned by the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the matter....In particular, [judge Geoffrey Gaulkin] wrote, judges should assess factors that might limit a witness’s reliability in picking someone out of a lineup, either in person or in a photo array..."

Click on the link below the see the complete report:

Click here to view the report at NJ Courts.com.

May 25, 2010

ABA: U.S. Supreme Court Update

A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

Received: May 25, 2010.

UNITED STATES v. O’BRIEN ET AL. No. 08–1569

In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the United States Supreme Court ruled the fact that a firearm was a machinegun is an element to be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt and not a sentencing factor to be proved to the judge at sentencing.

Respondents O’Brien and Burgess carried firearms during an attempted robbery. They were indicted under 18 U.S.C.§924(c)(1)(A)(i) - using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, which carries a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison. They were also indicted with a violation of §924(c)(1)(B)(ii) - use of a machinegun in furtherance of that crime, which carries a 30 year mandatory minimum prison term. The government went on to dismiss the latter count on the basis that they could not establish the count beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the government maintained that §924(c)(1)(B)(ii)’s machinegun provision should be a sentencing enhancement to be determined by the court after conviction of §924(c)(1)(A)(i). The District Court dismissed the machinegun count and rejected the government’s sentencing enhancement position. Respondents then plead guilty to the remaining counts.

The Supreme Court granted cert and the case was argued on February 23, 2010. The Court relied largely on Castillo v. United States, 530 U. S. 120, which held that in an earlier version of §924(c), the machinegun provision was an element of the crime and not a sentencing factor (which only needs to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence). The Court previously held when Congress is not clear on whether a factor is an element or a sentencing factor, courts should examine a statute’s framework and provisions for direction. The Court followed the determination in Castillo that the machinegun provision in §924’s prior version is an element and that a substantive modification of the statute should not be inferred absent a clear sign from Congress of a change in policy. Grogan v. Garner, 498 U. S. 279, 290 (1991). The Court found that nothing in the amendment of §924 indicates such a substantive change. Ultimately, the Court held that the machinegun provision is an element that needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Case is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1569.pdf

Written by Chaz Lehman, CJS Research Attorney

United States v. Marcus, No. 08-1341

United States Supreme Court Decision: May 24, 2010

In a 7-1 opinion by Justice Breyer, the United States Supreme Court held that the 2nd Circuit’s interpretation of Federal Rule 52(b) was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the plain error rule.

Glenn Marcus was convicted of unlawful forced labor and sex trafficking in violation of 18 USC §§ 1589 and 1591(a)(1) between January 1999 and October 2001. Upon appeal, Marcus raised the defense for the first time that his statutes relating to his convictions became law on October 28, 2000. The indictment and all of the evidence used against him at trial took place earlier. Marcus argued that his conviction, therefore, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. Marcus argued that his conviction must be overturned because the constitutional error constituted “plain error” according to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 52(b).

The 2nd Circuit held that plain error exists if there is any possibility, no matter how unlikely, that a jury convicted a defendant exclusively on the basis of the actions the defendant took before the statute criminalizing his conduct was enacted. The Supreme Court granted cert to decide whether the 2nd Circuit’s “plain error” approach was consistent with the Supreme Court’s own interpretation.

Federal Rule 52(b) authorizes the appellate court to recognize “plain error that affects substantial rights” even if that error was not raised in the district court. The Supreme Court held the 2nd Circuit’s interpretation improper because Marcus failed to demonstrate that “the error ‘affected the appellant’s substantial rights’”, meaning it “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings”, and that “the error seriously affect(s) the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” The 2nd Circuit’s “any possibility, no matter how unlikely” analysis is inconsistent. Reversed and remanded.

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, C.J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Alito, JJ.. Justice Stevens dissented. Judge Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Case is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1341.pdf
Written By: Afua A. Osseo-Asare, CJS Intern

Jefferson v. Upton No. 09-8852

United States Supreme Court Decision: Decided: May 24, 2010

In a per curiam opinion issued today the Supreme Court ruled that the appellate court (11th Cir.) failed to apply all eight exceptions to a state court factual findings (regarding constitutionality of representation) and the judgment was vacated to consider several remaining potentially applicable exceptions. See 28 U.S.C. §§2254(d)(1)-(8) (1994 ed.).

Lawrence Jefferson was facing a death sentence and claimed in both state and federal court that his lawyers were constitutionally inadequate because they failed to investigate a previous brain injury which may have impacted his impulse control. As a child Jefferson suffered a serious brain injury and at the district court level expert testimony demonstrated that the injury caused “abnormal behavior” over which he had “no or substantially limited control”. Jefferson v. Terry, 490 F. Supp. 2d 1261 at 1321. In addition, testimony from Dr. Gary Dudley prepared for trial court noted that although Jefferson’s decision making capacity was not impaired, he thought it worthwhile to conduct further evaluations to rule out brain damage which could impair behavioral patterns. Jefferson’s attorneys failed to pursue such testing noting that in later conversations Dr. Dudley had told them that further investigation would be a waste of their time (a sworn affidavit by Dr. Dudley denied such statements). Relying on findings crediting the trial attorneys own testimony with regards to their efforts to investigate Jefferson’s mental condition the trial court held that the attorneys made a reasonable investigation into his mental health. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, despite noting that court’s opinion relied on a witness “who did not testify” or participate in the proceedings. Jefferson v. Gant, 263 Ga. 316, 318.

A federal district court substantiated factual findings of the state court but held that counsel was ineffective and on appeal Jefferson defended these findings and argued that the state court’s factfinding was ‘dubious at best’. Noting an exception enumerated in Townsend v. Sain the Court emphasized that if a habeas applicant did not receive full and fair evidentiary hearing then federal court may hold such a hearing. 372 U.S. 293 (1963). The opinion specifically states that if any of the eight exceptions are applicable (as outlined in Townsend and later codified in §2254(d)) then the state courts factfinding is not presumed correct and the federal court is not duty-bound to accept any and all state-court findings that are supported by the record. The Supreme Court held that by only considering one of the eight exceptions the appellate court failed to correctly consider the legal status of the state court’s factual findings.

Judgment vacated and case remanded.

SCALIA, J. filed a dissenting opinion in which THOMAS, J. joined.

Decision available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-8852.pdf

Written by: Caitlin Huggins, CJS Summer Intern

Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson No. 08–6261.

United States Supreme Court Decision: May 24, 2010

In a per curium decision with four dissenters, the United States Supreme Court ordered the petition dismissed as improvidently granted. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissent joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sotomayor. Justice Sotomayor also wrote separately and was joined by Justice Kennedy.

Petitioner Robertson was convicted in the District of Columbia of criminal contempt initiated and prosecuted on behalf of Respondent Watson for violating a protective order after he assaulted her. However, before contempt proceedings were initiated, Robertson made a plea agreement dismissing any further action against him relating to the assault. Robertson appealed the conviction because it was barred by his plea agreement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Watson was acting in a private capacity and therefore not bound to the government’s plea agreement.

The Court originally granted cert to decide “[w]hether an action for criminal contempt in a congressionally created court may constitutionally be brought in the name and pursuant to the power of a private person, rather than in the name and pursuant to the power of the United States.” Although the Court gave no reason for its dismissal in the per curium order, it apparently agreed with the Solicitor General, supporting the respondent, Watson. The Solicitor General argued for dismissal because the issue presented was not properly argued or developed by the petitioner in the present litigation. Arguing before the lower appellate court, the United States asserted that Watson was acting in a purely private capacity in bringing the criminal contempt action against Robertson and therefore no constitutional protection applied. Although the lower court found that reasoning persuasive, the Solicitor General abandoned that argument before the Supreme Court—foreshadowing the Court’s eventual dismissal.

Case is available at:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-6261.pdf

Written By: Erin Magary, CJS Research attorney

May 17, 2010

U.S. Supreme Court Case Update: U.S. v. Comstock

A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

United States v. Comstock (No. 08-1224)

United States Supreme Court Decision: May 17, 2010

In United States v. Comstock (08-1224), the Court reversed and remanded the lower court’s decision ruling that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete. Today’s Supreme Court opinion upholds the law passed by Congress allowing civil commitment of a federal prisoner who is a sex offender to continue beyond the date the inmate otherwise would be released.

The Adam Walsh Child protection and Safety Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006, authorized, in 18 U.S.C. § 4248, the civil commitment of “sexually dangerous” federal inmates already held in custody. This act provides authority to the government to have individuals either completing federal prison sentences or incompetent to stand trial, to remain in federal custody indefinitely if they are found through clear and convincing evidence to be a person who is legally “sexually dangerous.”

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was challenged by four men, who served prison terms for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. When these four men were completing terms in federal prison, the federal government initiated civil-commitment proceedings stating they would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released. The four men moved to dismiss the proceedings on constitutional grounds that 18 U.S.C. § 4248 exceeded Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause, the “clear and convincing requirement” did not meet due process standards, and that the section violated the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The federal district court ruled in their favor and granted a motion to dismiss.

The issue before the Supreme Court was narrowed to whether congress had the constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. 4248 under the Necessary and Proper Clause and whether congress could authorize the civil commitment of a “sexually dangerous” person who is already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences) or who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial. The United States argued that this potential civil commitment is a “necessary and proper” exercise of federal power. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion stated, "[T]he statute is a 'necessary and proper' means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others." Thus the Supreme Court concluded that the United States Constitution does provide legislative power for Congress to enact 18 U.S.C. § 4248.

REVERSED AND REMANDED


A 7-2 decision with an opinion written by Justice Breyer. Justice Thomas dissented, Justice Scalia joined in part on Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion. Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment only, joined by Justice Alito.

April 6, 2010

Findlaw Case Law Summaries: Criminal Law and Procedure

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw

March 29, 2010 - April 2, 2010.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Supreme Court, March 30, 2010
Berghuis v. Smith, No. 08–1402
In habeas proceedings brought by an individual convicted of second degree murder by an all-white jury, the Sixth Circuit's reversal of the denial of petitioner's habeas petition is reversed where Duren v. Missouri, 439 U. S. 357 (1979), hardly established -- much less "clearly" so -- that petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community, because petitioner's evidence gave the Michigan Supreme Court little reason to conclude that the county's juror assignment order had any significant effect on the representation of African-Americans in the venire.

U.S. Supreme Court, March 31, 2010
Padilla v. Kentucky, No. 08–651
In postconviction proceedings arising from a drug distribution prosecution, after which petitioner faced deportation based on his guilty plea and claimed that his counsel failed to advise him of the consequences of the plea, denial of postconviction relief is reversed and remanded where, because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, petitioner sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. ..

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 01, 2010
US v. Charlton, No. 08-1797
Defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act are affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to establish that the government purposely discriminated against African-Americans in exercising its peremptory challenge against a juror and thus the district court committed no error - clear or plain - in permitting the government's peremptory challenge against that prospective juror; and 2) the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal. ..

Continue reading "Findlaw Case Law Summaries: Criminal Law and Procedure" »

December 21, 2009

New York Appellate Criminal Cases Originating from the New York Supreme Court NY County


December 21, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v Hayes, 1802, 4897/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9399; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9207, December 17, 2009, Decided, December 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, ...

2. People v Marcellin, 1804, 9043/98, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9401; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9209, December 17, 2009, Decided, December 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
... appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, ...

3. People v Garcia, 1819, 5122/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9376; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9194, December 17, 2009, Decided, December 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, ...

4. People v Cordisco, 1825, 4108/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9382; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9185, December 17, 2009, Decided, December 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, ...

...

Continue reading "New York Appellate Criminal Cases Originating from the New York Supreme Court NY County" »

December 15, 2009

New York Appellate Criminal Cases Originating from the New York Supreme Court NY County - LexisNexis

December 14, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v Padilla, 1712, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9144; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8976, December 10, 2009, Decided, December 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
... appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), ...

2. People v Perkins, 1716, 3963/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9146; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8966, December 10, 2009, Decided, December 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, ...

3. People v Shaw, 1730, 7741/02, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9157; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8981, December 10, 2009, Decided, December 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, ...

4. People v Thomas, 1740, 1734/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9163; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8984, December 10, 2009, Decided, December 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), ...

5. People v Henry, 1741, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9164; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8987, December 10, 2009, Decided, December 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
... appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, ...

December 14, 2009

U.S. Supreme Court Update: Beard v. Kindler

A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

Beard v. Kindler, No. 08-992 (U.S. Dec. 8, 2009)

"The Court decided a capital habeas matter involving whether Pennsylvania's fugitive forfeiture rule provided an adequate basis to bar federal habeas review of petitioner's claims, grant of habeas petition is vacated and remanded where a state procedural rule is not automatically "inadequate" under the adequate state ground doctrine (and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas review) because the state rule was discretionary rather than mandatory).

The respondent, Kindler was convicted of capital murder in Pennsylvania. The jury recommended the death sentence. Kindler subsequently filed post verdict motions but before the trial court could consider the motions he escaped and fled to Canada. He was picked up in Canada, escaped again and was eventually caught and now back in custody. During the time he was escaping the court dismissed the motions. Once back in prison Kindler moved to reinstate the motions which the trial court denied.

Kindler argued on direct appeal that the trial court erred in declining to address the merits of his post verdict motions, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed. Kindler’s claims were rejected on state habeas, and he sought federal habeas relief. Under the adequate state ground doctrine, a federal habeas court will not review a claim rejected by a state court “if the decision of [the state] court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 729. The District Court nonetheless granted Kindler’s habeas petition, determining that the state fugitive forfeiture rule did not provide an adequate basis to bar federal review of Kindler’s habeas claims. The Third Circuit affirmed, and the Commonwealth petitioned for certiorari.

Held: A state procedural rule is not automatically “inadequate” under the adequate state ground doctrine—and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas review—because the state rule is discretionary rather than mandatory. The question whether a state procedural ruling is adequate is itself a question of federal law. Given the federalism and comity concerns motivating the adequate state ground doctrine in the habeas context, see Coleman, supra, at 730, this Court should not disregard discretionary state procedural rules that are in place in nearly every State and are substantially similar to those given full force in federal courts. Cf. Francis v. Henderson, 425 U. S. 536, 541–542. Pp. 7–9."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-992.pdf


December 7, 2009

New York Appellate Criminal Cases Originating from the New York Supreme Court NY County

December 7, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v Basbus, 1649, 2759/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8964; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8782, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Roger S. Hayes, ...

2. People v McAlpin, 187, 5214/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8957; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8770, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, ...

3. People v Brown, 1642, 1566/06, 5155/06, 5903/06, 5995/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8959; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8789, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
... appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), ...

4. People v Watson, 1627, 3735/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8947; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8768, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
... appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), ...

5. People v Hecker, 1639, 5770/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8955; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8797, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, ...

6. People v Boulware, 1657, 4523/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8972; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8769, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Stolz, J.), ...

7. People v Koonce, 1629-2579/04, 1629A, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8948; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8766, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, ...

8. People v Carvajal, 1651, 2185/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8966; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8791, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, ...

9. People v Barnes, 1656, 3299/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8971; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8784, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), ...

10. People v Capers, 1636, 2862/02, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8953; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8780, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, ...

11. People v Stanley, 1624, 504/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8944; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8764, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J. ...

12. People v Argentieri, 1248, 1249, 4081/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 7495; 887 N.Y.S.2d 568; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7352, October 22, 2009, Decided, October 22, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), ...

November 27, 2009

New York Appellate Criminal Cases Originating from the New York Supreme Court NY County - LexisNexis

November 26, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v Johnson, 1541, 1748/99, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8682; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8510, November 24, 2009, Decided, November 24, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, ...

2. People v Carter, 1557, 1557A, 1174/00, 5667/01, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8689; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8518, November 24, 2009, Decided, November 24, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael A. Corriero, ...

3. People v Perez, 1556, 7034/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8688; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8515, November 24, 2009, Decided, November 24, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, ...

4. People v Tanner, 1569, 1570, 444/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8696; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8521, November 24, 2009, Decided, November 24, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, ...

5. People v Harris, 1578, 4783/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8701; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8530, November 24, 2009, Decided, November 24, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, ...

6. People v Fisher, 355/05, 81, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8704; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8531, November 24, 2009, Decided, November 24, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
... appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, ...
... coercion. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, ...
... was hardly Draconian. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, ...

7. People v Montes, 534, 3418/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8680; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8535, November 24, 2009, Decided, November 24, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), ...

8. People v Pearson, 1549, 2835/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8686; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8511, November 24, 2009, Decided, November 24, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, ...

9. People v. Banks, 1149, 6248/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 7308; 887 N.Y.S.2d 41; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7185, October 13, 2009, Decided, October 13, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, ...

10. People v Pacheco, 1136, 6695/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 7196; 887 N.Y.S.2d 19; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6987, October 8, 2009, Decided, October 8, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, ...

11. People v Sene, 1120, 1121, 2850/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 7160; 887 N.Y.S.2d 8; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6973, October 6, 2009, Decided, October 6, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, ...

November 19, 2009

New York Appellate Criminal Cases Originating from the New York Supreme Court NY County - LexisNexis

November 18-19, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v Castillo, 1331, 3751/00, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 7760; 886 N.Y.S.2d 805; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7589, October 29, 2009, Decided, October 29, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, ...

2. People v Lewis, 1338, 1686/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 7766; 886 N.Y.S.2d 803; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7599, October 29, 2009, Decided, October 29, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), ...

3. People v Anderson, 1072, 3856/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6725; 65 A.D.3d 973; 885 N.Y.S.2d 415; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6573, September 29, 2009, Decided, September 29, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), ...

4. People v Haidara, 1074, 4709/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6726; 65 A.D.3d 974; 885 N.Y.S.2d 415; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6587, September 29, 2009, Decided, September 29, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, ...

5. People v Rawls, 1079, 638/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6731; 65 A.D.3d 978; 885 N.Y.S.2d 417; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6584, September 29, 2009, Decided, September 29, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, ...

6. People v Cartwright, 1070, 188/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6724; 65 A.D.3d 973; 885 N.Y.S.2d 414; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6588, September 29, 2009, Decided, September 29, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, ...

7. People v Sierra, 1064, 5958/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6719; 65 A.D.3d 968; 885 N.Y.S.2d 495; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6585, September 29, 2009, Decided, September 29, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), ...

8. People v Guillen, 1078, 2881/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6730; 65 A.D.3d 977; 886 N.Y.S.2d 373; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6578, September 29, 2009, Decided, September 29, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), ...

9. People v Johnson, 1076, 2486/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6728; 65 A.D.3d 975; 886 N.Y.S.2d 375; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6592, September 29, 2009, Decided, September 29, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, ...

10. People v Loyd, 1081, 1625/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6732; 65 A.D.3d 979; 886 N.Y.S.2d 63; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6594, September 29, 2009, Decided, September 29, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
... appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, ...

11. People v Wilson, 929, 5633/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6717; 65 A.D.3d 956; 886 N.Y.S.2d 17; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6579, September 29, 2009, Decided, September 29, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, ...

12. People v. Sprinkler, 1476, 3261/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8456; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8306, November 17, 2009, Decided, November 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
... appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), ...

13. People v Lantigue, 1480, 1481, 11732/95, 4996/00, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8459; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8315, November 17, 2009, Decided, November 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki Scherer, J.), ...

14. People v Sanchez, 1477, 5226/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8457; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8305, November 17, 2009, Decided, November 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), ...

15. People v Thompson, 1474, 6507/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8455; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8304, November 17, 2009, Decided, November 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, ...

16. People v. Brown, 1486, 3986/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8462; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8311, November 17, 2009, Decided, November 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, ...

November 12, 2009

New York Appellate Criminal Cases Originating from the New York Supreme Court NY County - LexisNexis

November 12, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v. Johnson, 9973, 1634/02, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8052; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7904, November 10, 2009, Decided, November 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, ...

2. People v Brunner, 1387, 5545/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8054; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7902, November 10, 2009, Decided, November 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, ...

3. People v Marks, 1411, 3459/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8070; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7916, November 10, 2009, Decided, November 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), ...

4. People v Shepard, 1029, 5496/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8051; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7901, November 10, 2009, Decided, November 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, ...

5. People v Pinero-Baez, 1396, 887/08, 1397, 83/08, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8060; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7907, November 10, 2009, Decided, November 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, ...

6. People v Hopkins, 1400, 316/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8062; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7933, November 10, 2009, Decided, November 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), ...

7. People v Quan Hong Ye, 1404, 2968/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8064; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7911, November 10, 2009, Decided, November 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, ...

8. People v Vanderpul, 1406, 6369/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8066; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7920, November 10, 2009, Decided, November 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Ambrecht, ...

9. People v Mornix, 1413, 592N/08, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8072; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7924, November 10, 2009, Decided, November 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
... appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, ...

10. People v Chauncy, 1422, 1775/07, 5496/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8079; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7928, November 10, 2009, Decided, November 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
... appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, ...

11. People v. Nestingen, 1421, 2154/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8078; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7929, November 10, 2009, Decided, November 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
... appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), ...

12. People v. Fulton, 1425 1101/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8081; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7931, November 10, 2009, Decided, November 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...