Articles Posted in Court Decisions

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

March 9 – 13, 2009:

U.S. Supreme Court, March 09, 2009 Vermont v. Brillon, No. 08-88 The Vermont Supreme Court’s reversal of Defendant’s domestic violence conviction is reversed, where the Vermont Supreme Court held that delays attributable to Defendant’s assigned counsel denied Defendant a speedy trial, but assigned counsel, just as retained counsel, act on behalf of their clients, and delays sought by counsel are ordinarily attributable to the defendants they represent.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 12, 2009 US v. Rivera-Maldonado , No. 07-1426
Judgment against defendant for possession of child pornography is vacated where: 1) in plain error, the magistrate judge relied on the plea agreement and erroneously told defendant that the maximum possible period of supervised release was three years, and did not inform defendant that he could be sentenced to lifetime supervised release; 2) the error affected defendant’s substantial rights as he has shown a reasonable probability that he would not have entered the guilty plea if he understood that it would lead to a lifetime of supervised release; and 3) the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Case is remanded with instructions that defendant be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 12, 2009 US v. Arbour, No. 07-1979
Sentence for drug and firearms offenses is affirmed where the district court did not commit clear error in holding that defendant was involved in a criminal activity that was extensive and that he qualified as a leader or organizer of the criminal activity, thereby invoking an increase in his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Continue reading

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

March 9 – 13, 2009:

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, March 10, 2009 Fontroy v. Beard, No. 07-2446 In an action involving the First Amendment rights of prisoners, district court’s judgment is reversed where the defendant’s new prison mail policy requiring attorneys and courts to affix control numbers to mail sent to inmates is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and thus does not unconstitutionally infringe on First Amendment rights, as there is a rational connection between the mail policy and the prison’s interest in prison security and safety.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

March 16, 2009.

1. People v. Casanova, 89/06, 54, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1850; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1698, March 12, 2009, Decided, March 12, 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 (Bruce Allen, J.), …
… People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), …
… Squib inserted here: Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), …

2. People v. Monroe, 4727, 1389/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1830; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1799, March 12, 2009, Decided, March 12, 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 (James A. Yates, …

3. People v. Velez, 4741, 6382/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1831; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1779, March 12, 2009, Decided, March 12, 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 (James A. Yates, …

4. People v. Bennett, 5258, 5259, 5260, 1247/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1834; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1805, March 12, 2009, Decided, March 12, 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, …

5. People v. La Rosa, 47, 3687/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1842; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1781, March 12, 2009, Decided, 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, …
Continue reading

From the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section: http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

I”n a case arising from a felony domestic assault and habitual offender charges, where the defendant had at least six different appointed attorneys between the time of his arrest and his trial, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for want of a speedy trial. The Vermont Supreme Court, however, reversed, holding that the conviction must be vacated, and the charges dismissed, because the State did not accord a speedy trial as is required by the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that The Vermont Supreme Court erred in ranking assigned counsel essentially as state actors in the criminal justice system, stating that assigned counsel, just as retained counsel, act on behalf of their clients, and, in the absence of institutional breakdowns of the public defender system, delays sought by counsel are ordinarily attributable to the defendants they represent.”

The full opinion can be accessed at http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-88

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

March 6, 2009.

1. People v. Malave, 5407, 43/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1529; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1503, March 3, 2009, Decided, March 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 (Edward J. McLaughlin, …

2. People v. Caldwell, 5411, 5645/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1532; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1507, March 3, 2009, Decided, March 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 (Michael J. Obus, …

3. People v. Ramirez, 5415, 5415A, 3426/05, 364/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1535; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1502, March 3, 2009, Decided, March 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 …
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, …

4. People v. Rush, 5412, 6099/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1533; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1501, March 3, 2009, Decided, 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.), …

5. People v. Richiez, 5421, 3431/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1540; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1511, March 3, 2009, Decided, 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, …
Continue reading

From the ABA Criminal Justice Section: http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

United States v. Hayes (No. 07-608)

“The court released an opinion regarding the prohibition on possession of a firearm by convicted felons to include persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Police officers discovered a rifle in respondent Hayes’s home. Hayes was charged with possessing firearms after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. He was previously convicted for battery in 1994 against his then-wife. Hayes moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his past conviction did not qualify as a predicate offense because West Virginia’s generic battery law did not designate a domestic relationship between aggressor and victim as an element of the offense. When the District Court denied the motion, Hayes entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that a §922(g)(9) predicate offense must have as an element a domestic relationship between offender and victim.”

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

March 2, 2009.

1. People v. Becoate, 5345, 4009/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1401; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1347, February 26, 2009, Decided, February 26, 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, …

2. People v. Galarza, 5384, 2120/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1427; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1362, February 26, 2009, Decided, February 26, 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.), …

3. People v. Garcia, 5352, 3907/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1407; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1397, February 26, 2009, Decided, 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 Obus, J.), …

4. People v. Albright, 4699, 4061/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1397; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1360, February 26, 2009, Decided, February 26, 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 M. Stolz, …

5. People v. Butler, 5367, 5199/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1416; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1358, February 26, 2009, Decided, February 26, 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.), …

6. People v. Martinez, 5374, 2875/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1420; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1384, February 26, 2009, Decided, February 26, 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. Vallevaleix, 4921, 511/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 10203; 57 A.D.3d 412; 869 N.Y.S.2d 846; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9955, December 30, 2008, Decided, 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, …
Continue reading

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

February 21 – February 27, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court, February 24, 2009 Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n., No. 07-869 In a First Amendment challenge to a law prohibiting public employees from making payroll deductions for political activities, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where the First Amendment does not confer a right to use government payroll mechanisms for political expression.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 25, 2009 Del Gallo v. Parent, No. 08-1511
In a case involving First Amendment rights and the right to campaign on a post office sidewalk, grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the post office sidewalk is not a traditional public forum; 2) the regulation barring candidate’s election campaigning on a post office sidewalk is viewpoint neutral and reasonable to prevent abuses and to preclude any appearance of partisan endorsement or preference; and 3) there is insufficient evidence of a pattern of selective enforcement before plaintiff’s arrest, and the regulation has been consistently applied since then.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 27, 2009 Poirier v. Massachusetts Dept. of Corr. , No. 08-1290
In a civil rights action, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed where enforcement of a Department of Corrections rule prohibiting unauthorized personal contact with former inmates did not violate plaintiff’s constitutional right to intimate association because the rule is a rational means of promoting the legitimate government interest in prison security. District court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s suit against the DOC on sovereign immunity grounds and claim for damages is affirmed.
Continue reading

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

February 21 – February 27, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court, February 24, 2009 US v. Hayes, No. 07-608 Defendant’s conviction for possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. section 921 is affirmed, where a domestic relationship between the offender and victim need not be an element of the defendant’s “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to trigger Section 921’s possession ban. .

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 24, 2009 US v. Rodriguez-Lozada , No. 06-1988 Defendant’s convictions and sentences are vacated in part and otherwise affirmed where: 1) district court properly denied motion to suppress evidence for lack of standing as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched; 2) motion for severance was properly denied as untimely; and 3) although evidence was sufficient to uphold most counts of defendant’s conviction, there was insufficient evidence to uphold convictions for possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking and aiding and abetting possession. Co-defendant Rivera’s sentence is affirmed where: 1) district court’s drug quantity calculation for sentencing purposes was well-supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous; 2) court correctly imposed statutory sentencing enhancement for co-defendant Rivera’s leadership role; and 3) the sentence was reasonable in light of his particular circumstances. .

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 26, 2009 US v. Glover , No. 07-1983
Conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm is affirmed where: 1) the prosecutor’s closing statements were not improper; 2) the court did not err in classifying defendant’s prior conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines; and 3) the sentence imposed was reasonable.
Continue reading

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

February 16 – February 20, 2009
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 19, 2009 Yeboah-Sefah v. Ficco, No. 07-2585
Denial of habeus corpus relief by district court is affirmed where the state court reasonably concluded: 1) plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel’s conflict of interest; 2) plaintiff cannot satisfy standards set forth in Strickland and adequately prove constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel; and 3) plaintiff right to due process was not violated as he was determined to be competent a week before the trial and no evidence was brought to light indicating the competency determination needed to be revisited.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 17, 2009 Sledge v. Kooi, No. 07-1547 In a suit brought pro se by plaintiff alleging defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights while incarcerated, grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed. When facing pro se litigants who are repeat filers, absent a strong showing that the pro se litigant has acquired adequate experience more generally, a district court should limit the withdrawal of pro se litigant’s special status to specific contexts in which the litigant’s experiences indicates that he may fairly be deemed knowledgeable and experienced.
Continue reading

Contact Information