People v. Jurgins, No. 178 (N.Y. Dec. 17, 2015)

A challenge to the legality of a sentence based on an allegedly improper predicate felony determination is preserved for appellate review when raised in a CPL 440.20 motion, even if not raised at the time of sentencing.

Summary

The defendant, Mark Jurgins, appealed his second felony offender adjudication, arguing that his prior Washington, D.C. conviction for attempted robbery was not equivalent to a New York felony. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that while the defendant failed to preserve this argument on direct appeal, the issue was properly preserved for review because it was raised in a CPL 440.20 motion to set aside the sentence. The court determined that the D.C. statute under which the defendant was convicted could encompass acts that would be misdemeanors in New York. Therefore, it was not a proper basis for a predicate felony offender adjudication. The case underscores the importance of timely raising sentencing challenges through CPL 440.20 motions and clarifies how courts determine the equivalency of foreign convictions for sentencing purposes.

Facts

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery, with the plea conditioned on his being treated as a second felony offender based on a 2000 D.C. conviction for attempted robbery. During the plea, the court informed the defendant of the prior conviction and provided an opportunity to challenge it, which he did not do. He was subsequently sentenced to 25 years. After sentencing, the defendant moved under CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence, claiming ineffective assistance and illegal sentencing because the D.C. conviction did not qualify as a predicate felony. The trial court denied the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court of Bronx County adjudicated the defendant a second felony offender and sentenced him to 25 years in prison. Defendant moved, under CPL 440.20, to set aside his sentence, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and denial of the motion, although it modified the sentence. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant’s argument that his predicate felony was not equivalent to a New York felony was preserved for review on appeal from his judgment of conviction.

2. Whether the defendant’s challenge to his sentence was preserved for review where it was raised in his CPL 440.20 motion.

3. Whether the D.C. conviction for attempted robbery qualified as a predicate felony under New York law.

Holding

1. No, because the defendant failed to raise the issue at sentencing.

2. Yes, because the issue was raised in a CPL 440.20 motion.

3. No, because the D.C. statute could encompass acts that would not be felonies under New York law.

Court’s Reasoning

The court distinguished between the requirements for preserving an issue for direct appeal and preserving it when raised in a CPL 440.20 motion. While the defendant did not preserve his challenge on direct appeal because he did not object to the predicate felony determination at sentencing, his CPL 440.20 motion properly preserved the challenge. A CPL 440.20 motion is the correct vehicle for raising claims that a sentence is “unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid.” The court then examined the D.C. statute to determine if the elements of the offense were equivalent to a New York felony, which requires a prison sentence exceeding one year. Because the D.C. statute criminalized conduct (e.g., “sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching”) that would constitute a misdemeanor in New York, the D.C. conviction could not serve as a predicate felony.

Practical Implications

This case highlights the importance of meticulously raising all sentencing-related objections during both the sentencing proceeding and in subsequent CPL 440.20 motions. It clarifies that a CPL 440.20 motion provides a crucial opportunity to challenge the legality of a sentence, even if the issue was not raised at the initial sentencing. The ruling underscores that courts will examine the elements of the foreign jurisdiction’s statute to compare them with corresponding New York statutes. If the foreign statute covers conduct that would be a lesser crime or no crime in New York, it will not be a predicate for enhanced sentencing. Attorneys must carefully analyze the specific wording of foreign statutes to determine equivalency, which may involve consulting case law from the foreign jurisdiction. Failure to object at sentencing may forfeit the argument on direct appeal, but can still be raised in a CPL 440.20 motion.