New York Law Review

Tag: Constitutional Challenge

  • People v. Pena, 28 N.Y.3d 727 (2017): Preservation of Constitutional Challenges to Sentencing

    People v. Pena, 28 N.Y.3d 727 (2017)

    A defendant must preserve a claim that an aggregate sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment by raising the constitutional argument before the sentencing court; otherwise, the claim is not properly before the appellate court.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the defendant’s claim of an unconstitutionally excessive sentence was not preserved for appellate review. The defendant, convicted of multiple counts of predatory sexual assault and criminal sexual act, received consecutive sentences resulting in a lengthy aggregate term. The Court found that because the defendant did not raise an Eighth Amendment challenge before the sentencing court, the issue was not preserved, and the appellate court could not consider it. The Court emphasized the importance of giving the trial court the opportunity to address constitutional challenges, which aligns with the preservation rule and prior case law.

    Facts

    An off-duty police officer, the defendant, was convicted of three counts of predatory sexual assault and three counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree. He was sentenced to consecutive terms, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 75 years to life. On appeal, he argued that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, claiming it constituted cruel and unusual punishment. He also raised, for the first time, a claim under the New York State Constitution. The defendant had generally objected to the length of his sentence, arguing it was draconian, but did not specifically alert the court to his constitutional argument.

    Procedural History

    The trial court imposed the sentence. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, holding that the sentencing court lawfully imposed consecutive sentences and that the defendant failed to preserve his Eighth Amendment claim. The Appellate Division declined to review the constitutional claim in the interest of justice. The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant’s claim that his aggregate sentence violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution was properly preserved for appellate review.

    Holding

    1. No, because the defendant failed to raise the constitutional challenge before the sentencing court.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the well-established rule that a constitutional challenge to a sentence must be preserved by raising it before the sentencing court. The court found that the defendant’s general objection to the sentence’s length did not adequately preserve his Eighth Amendment claim because he did not alert the sentencing court to the constitutional argument. The Court cited People v. Ingram, reiterating that a failure to raise the constitutional issue at the trial level prevents appellate review. The Court distinguished the case from situations where fundamental sentencing power is challenged or where an illegal sentence is evident from the record. The Court reasoned that preserving the issue allows the trial court to address the constitutional claims and create a proper record for appellate review.

    Practical Implications

    This case underscores the critical importance of properly preserving issues for appeal, especially constitutional challenges. Attorneys must ensure that specific constitutional arguments, such as those based on the Eighth Amendment, are clearly and explicitly raised before the trial court. Failing to do so will likely result in a waiver of the issue on appeal, preventing appellate courts from reviewing the merits of the claim. This decision also reinforces the need for thoroughness in raising all potential legal issues at the trial court level to avoid procedural bars on appeal. This principle affects all stages of a criminal case from the initial arraignment to the sentencing phase. Future cases will need to consider whether objections made at sentencing were specific enough to raise any constitutional claims. Counsel should also anticipate the appellate court’s potential application of the Fuller and Morse exceptions, ensuring the record adequately reflects the legal basis of the constitutional challenge.

  • People v. Thomas, 98 N.Y.2d 737 (2002): Preserving Constitutional Challenges to Statutes

    People v. Thomas, 98 N.Y.2d 737 (2002)

    A challenge to the constitutionality of a statute must be raised in a pre-trial motion to preserve the issue for appellate review; otherwise, the appellate court’s reversal based on the unpreserved constitutional issue does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for further appeal to the Court of Appeals.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of loitering for gambling. After the verdict, he challenged the constitutionality of the loitering statute (Penal Law § 240.35[2]). The Supreme Court granted his motion to set aside the verdict, but the Appellate Division reversed, reinstating the conviction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because the constitutional challenge was not raised in a pre-trial motion as required by CPL 210.20 and CPL 255.20. Because the Appellate Division decided the case on an unpreserved issue, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under CPL 450.90(2)(a).

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted of loitering “in a public place for the purpose of gambling with cards, dice or other gambling paraphernalia” (Penal Law § 240.35 [2]). After the jury verdict, the defendant moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that Penal Law § 240.35 (2) was unconstitutional.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the verdict. One of the dissenting Appellate Division Justices granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Appellate Division’s reversal, based on a constitutional challenge to a statute raised for the first time after trial, satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of CPL 450.90(2)(a) for appeal to the Court of Appeals.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant failed to preserve the constitutional challenge by raising it in a pre-trial motion, the Appellate Division’s reversal based on that unpreserved issue does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of CPL 450.90(2)(a).

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of preserving issues for appellate review. It noted that CPL 210.20(1)(a) and 210.25(3) allow a defendant to seek dismissal of an indictment based on the unconstitutionality of the statute, and CPL 210.20(2) and 255.20(1) require such a motion to be made within 45 days of arraignment and before trial. While CPL 255.20(3) allows a court to entertain a motion at any time before sentencing “in the interest of justice, and for good cause shown,” the defendant did not make such a motion here.

    The Court stated that the time restrictions in CPL 255.20 are not arbitrary but serve “ ‘the strong public policy to further orderly trial procedures and preserve scarce trial resources’ ” (quoting People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 113 [1986]). The Legislature intended that a potentially dispositive motion should not be delayed until after an unfavorable verdict.

    Because the defendant’s constitutional challenge was made for the first time in a motion pursuant to CPL 330.30, it was not properly preserved (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]). Since the Appellate Division decided the constitutional issue on the merits without addressing the lack of preservation, its reversal was based on an issue not properly before it. This means it does not meet the jurisdictional requirement of CPL 450.90 (2) (a) (see People v Cona, 49 NY2d 26, 33 [1979]). The Court of Appeals therefore lacked the power to hear the appeal.

  • Herkimer Memorial Hospital v. Whalen, 47 N.Y.2d 970 (1979): Standing of Political Subdivisions to Challenge State Statutes

    Herkimer Memorial Hospital v. Whalen, 47 N.Y.2d 970 (1979)

    Political subdivisions of a state lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute that restricts the subdivision’s governmental powers.

    Summary

    Herkimer Memorial Hospital, operated by a municipal corporation, challenged a determination by the New York State Department of Health that modified its operating certificate, requiring it to provide long-term care services instead of acute care. The hospital argued that the statute authorizing this modification was unconstitutional. The New York Court of Appeals held that as a political subdivision of the state, the hospital lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute restricting its governmental powers. The Court reasoned that the hospital’s power to operate was delegated by the legislature, and it could not challenge the source of that power.

    Facts

    Herkimer Memorial Hospital was established by the appellant, a municipal corporation, under the authority of Section 126 of the General Municipal Law.

    The State Department of Health, pursuant to Section 2806 of the Public Health Law, modified the hospital’s operating certificate.

    The modified certificate stipulated that the hospital should provide long-term care services instead of operating as a 70-bed acute care facility.

    The hospital challenged the Department of Health’s determination, arguing that the statute was facially unconstitutional.

    Procedural History

    The hospital challenged the determination in court.

    The Appellate Division’s order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a political subdivision of the State of New York has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute that restricts the subdivision’s governmental powers.

    Holding

    No, because political subdivisions are part and parcel of the power delegated by the Legislature and cannot challenge the constitutionality of acts restricting their governmental powers.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on the principle that political subdivisions of a state lack the power to challenge the constitutionality of state statutes that restrict the subdivision’s governmental powers. The Court stated, “Inasmuch as political subdivisions of the State are powerless to challenge the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature that restricts the subdivision’s governmental powers, appellant lacks standing to maintain its constitutional challenge to section 2806 of the Public Health Law (see Town of Black Brook v State of New York, 41 NY2d 486, 488).” The hospital’s power to operate stemmed from a delegation by the state legislature, and therefore, the hospital could not challenge the validity of that delegation.

    The Court emphasized that the hospital was established and operated as part of the power delegated by the Legislature to the appellant as a political subdivision.

    This case is significant because it reinforces the established principle that political subdivisions cannot challenge the constitutionality of state laws that govern their powers, thus preserving the state’s legislative authority over its subdivisions.