24 N.Y.3d 125 (2014)
r
r
CPL 330.30(1) motions to set aside a verdict must be based on matters already in the trial record, and matters outside the record cannot be introduced for the first time in such motions.
r
r
Summary
r
These cases concern the procedural limitations of CPL 330.30(1) motions and the constitutionality of sentencing defendants as persistent felony offenders. The Court of Appeals held that defendants’ motions to set aside the verdict were procedurally improper because they relied on matters outside the existing trial record, which is not permitted under CPL 330.30(1). The court also upheld the constitutionality of the defendant’s sentencing as a persistent felony offender, finding no merit in the challenge. The court did not express an opinion on whether a trial court has the authority to consider a CPL 330.30(1) motion as a premature de facto CPL 440.10 motion in certain cases because the trial court neither deemed the motion to be a premature CPL 440.10 motion nor decided the motion in accordance with the criteria and procedures delineated in CPL 440.30.
r
r
Facts
r
In People v. Hawkins, the defendant moved to set aside the verdict, alleging a denial of the right to a public trial based on affirmations from attorneys stating they couldn’t enter the courtroom. This information was not part of the original trial record.
r
In People v. Giles, the facts relevant to the CPL 330.30 motion are not explicitly detailed, but the defendant challenged the constitutionality of his sentencing as a persistent felony offender.
r
r
Procedural History
r
In People v. Hawkins, the Criminal Court granted the motion to set aside the verdict, but the Appellate Term reversed, reinstating the verdict.
r
In People v. Giles, the specific lower court procedural history regarding the CPL 330.30 motion isn’t detailed. The case reached the Court of Appeals concerning the persistent felony offender sentencing.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether a CPL 330.30(1) motion can be based on matters outside the existing trial record.
r
2. Whether sentencing a defendant as a persistent felony offender under New York law violates the constitution.
r
r
Holding
r
1. No, because CPL 330.30(1) explicitly states that the motion must be based on grounds that