CAL in the Courts

The postings below present recent noteworthy CAL court appearances and case outcomes. Please use the Contact Us inquiry form if you'd like further information about any of these cases.


4.12.2017
Client's Conviction Reversed, Accusatory Instrument Dismissed
On April 10, 2017, the Appellate Term, First Department, reversed the conviction of CAL client DB and dismissed the accusatory instrument. DB had been accused of fifth-degree possession of stolen property and petit larceny for clocking out a co-worker from work on a single date. However, there was no allegation that he had clocked in the co-worker. On that set of facts, there was no basis for finding reasonable cause to believe that he had committed an act aimed at depriving his employer of any wages. Kate Skolnick represented DB.
3.29.17
Client's Conviction Reversed on Speedy Trial Grounds
On March 29, 2017, the Appellate Term, First Department, reversed the conviction of CAL client DO and dismissed the accusatory instrument.  DO had been accused of driving while intoxicated.  However, a 43-month delay between DO’s arrest and his plea of guilty was found to be excessive, in violation of DO’s constitutional right of a speedy trial, on account of the simple nature of the charges and the lack of a good reason for the delay.  Hunter Haney represented DO.  
3.21.2017
Client's SORA Level Reduced
The Appellate Division, First Department granted CAL client AW a rare downward departure in his SORA level on appeal, from the recommended level 3 to a level 2. The court cited, among other reasons, our client's extraordinary demonstrated rehabiliation and educational accomplishments that he achieved while incarcerated, including multiple college degrees and many succesful rehabilitative programs. Our client was represented by Abigail Everett. 
3.15.17
Client's Conviction Reversed and Dismissed
On March 15, 2017, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed and dismissed CAL client H.F.’s harassment conviction. The court held that the complainant’s testimony that “defendant apparently mistook her for someone else, and ‘grazed’ her arm, from her mid-shoulder to her hand, after which she walked away, did not support an inference that defendant intended to harass, annoy, or alarm her.” Brittany Francis represented our client. 
3.15.17
Client's Conviction Reversed, New Trial Ordered
On March 15, 2017, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed CAL client TT’s second-degree robbery conviction. The four-judge majority held that the court’s supplemental instructions on the interplay between accomplice liability and two different theories of robbery failed to cure the confusion that the jury expressed in repeatedly submitting notes requesting clarification on “shared state of mind.” Because of the faulty charge conflating the questions of whether each defendant separately had the intent to forcibly steal property, there could be no assurance that the jury did not find TT guilty of no more than simple assault and his co-defendant guilty of no more than petit larceny. It thus found the trial unfair and ordered a new one. Kate Skolnick and Sharmeen Mazumder represented TT.
2.10.17
Client's Marijuana Conviction Thrown Out
On Feb. 10, 2017, the Appellate Term reversed and dismissed the marijuana possession conviction for CAL client JD. The court agreed with JD’s argument that the complaint did not establish the “public place” element of fifth-degree marijuana possession where all that was pleaded was that Mr. D was “across from” an address. Rather than remand for further proceedings on the remaining count, unlawful possession of marijuana, the court dismissed the entire accusatory instrument. Kate Skolnick represented JD.”
2.7.17
Client's Conviction Reversed
On February 7, 2017, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed EB’s first-degree assault conviction due to a jury charge error. EB, who was charged with both attempted murder and first-degree assault, asserted self-defense at trial. The jury acquitted EB of attempted murder and convicted him of assault; however, the lower court never told the jury that if it acquitted EB of the top count because he was justified, it must not consider the lesser count. The Appellate Division agreed that because the jury may have acquitted EB of attempted murder based on justification, the assault conviction must be reversed in the interest of justice. Rachel T. Goldberg represented our client.    
1.31.17
Client's Conviction Reversed
On January 31, 2017, the Appellate Division, First Department, in a unanimous decision, reversed CAL client E.F.’s convictions and dismissed the indictment. The court held that “the evidence was legally insufficient to support an inference, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant shared the specific intent of the boyfriend to use the firearm unlawfully against another,”  and that “there was no evidence that [E.F.] participated in the attack, for which she was not present, or that anyone ever communicated to her an intent to use the firearm.” The court noted that E.F. had been acquitted of all the charges alleging that she had acted in concert to harm the victim. Brittany Francis represented our client. 
1.26.17
Appellate Division Reverses Conviction on Speedy Trial Grounds
On January 26, 2017, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed the robbery conviction for CAL client J.W., who was serving a term of 12 years in prison.  The New York County District Attorney conceded that JW’s trial attorney had not consented to a six-week pre-trial adjournment. The appellate court agreed that J.W.’s speedy trial rights, under CPL section 30.30, were violated and dismissed the indictment. Abigail Everett represented our client.
1.24.17
CAL Wins 15-Year Sentence Reduction for Client
On January 24, 2017, the Appellate Division, First Department found that the lower court improperly imposed consecutive sentences on WL for the illegal  possession and sale of firearms. The People conceded---and the Appellate Division agreed---that because there was no evidence that WL possessed the guns other than at the moment he sold them, consecutive sentences were illegal. Rather than remand WL’s case to the lower court for resentencing, the Appellate Division modified the sentences to run concurrently, effectively reducing WL’s sentence from 30 years’ imprisonment to 15 years. Our client was represented by Rachel T. Goldberg.
www.appellate-litigation.org