People v. Kemp — First Department strikes unsupported probation conditions
The First Department removed gang, substance-use, and psychiatric probation conditions that had no evidentiary relationship to the defendant’s offense or rehabilitation.
The First Department removed gang, substance-use, and psychiatric probation conditions that had no evidentiary relationship to the defendant’s offense or rehabilitation.
After a second remand, the First Department held Bergdorf Goodman security remained private despite using NYPD forms, calling 911, and transferring a suspect to police.
The First Department held that Erlinger does not require juries to calculate incarceration periods used in New York persistent-violent-felony sentencing.
The First Department affirmed a $100-per-day contempt award after OMH left an incompetent defendant at Rikers for months beyond a court-ordered transfer deadline.
The First Department exercised interest-of-justice discretion to send a 17-year-old’s weapon case to Family Court because prosecutors had not shown extraordinary circumstances overcoming Raise the Age’s removal presumption.
The First Department held that calculating incarceration tolling for predicate-felony status is ministerial and does not require a jury under Erlinger.
The First Department ordered a second resentencing because the judge denying youthful-offender treatment appeared unfamiliar with the defendant’s actual offense and personal circumstances.
The First Department reinstated an indictment after recalculating the CPL 30.30 clock at 97 days, excluding codefendant motion practice, reasonable preparation time, and defense-caused delay.
The Appellate Division, First Department vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded for a Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) eligibility hearing after the People conceded that conditioning her guilty plea on waiver of a Penal Law § 60.12 hearing was improper under People v. N.H.
The First Department modified a probation sentence, striking four conditions as not reasonably necessary under Penal Law § 65.10(1): a financial surcharge on an indigent defendant relying on public assistance, a dependent-support condition where the defendant had no dependents, an order-of-protection compliance condition with no supporting history, and a gang-paraphernalia ban with no evidence of any gang connection.