People v. Williams

4 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. New York

    367 F. Supp. 2d 449 (W.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 2 times

    The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed Williams's conviction on March 14, 1997, on the basis that an impermissible verdict sheet was submitted to the jury to assist in its deliberations. People v. Williams, 237 A.D.2d 982 (4th Dept. 1997). The prosecution subsequently offered Williams a plea bargain wherein he would plead guilty to the crime of second degree burglary in return for a sentence promise of 8 years to life incarceration.

  2. People v. Williams

    101 A.D.3d 1728 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 4 times
    Vacating May 1, 2009 conviction in Ontario County Court of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument and dismissing conviction of fourth-degree grand larceny without prejudice to re-represent to another grand jury

    Here, CPL 310.20(2) was violated when County Court annotated the verdict sheet with, inter alia, the check number corresponding to count two of the indictment, under which defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. Under these circumstances, the error requires reversalof the judgment with respect to both the conviction under that count and the conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree as a lesser included offense under count four of the indictment because, despite the absence of any improper annotation in relation thereto, count four is “factually related” to count two ( People v. Kelly, 76 N.Y.2d 1013, 1015, 565 N.Y.S.2d 754, 566 N.E.2d 1159;see People v. Williams, 237 A.D.2d 982, 983, 656 N.Y.S.2d 988,lv. denied90 N.Y.2d 866, 661 N.Y.S.2d 193, 683 N.E.2d 1067). Contrary to the People's contention, “harmless error analysis is inappropriate where the limits imposed on verdict sheet annotations by CPL 310.20(2) have been exceeded” ( Miller, 18 N.Y.3d at 709, 944 N.Y.S.2d 433, 967 N.E.2d 656). We agree with defendant that reversal is also required based on the court's improper limitation of defense counsel's summation.

  3. People v. Williams

    280 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    Defendant admitted to that status, and the court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 10 years to life. This Court modified the judgment by reversing the conviction under specified counts and granted a new trial on those counts ( see, People v. Williams, 237 A.D.2d 982, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 866). Following the retrial, defendant was acquitted of burglary in the second degree and convicted of the lesser included offense of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). Because burglary in the third degree is not classified as a violent felony, defendant was not subject to sentencing as a persistent violent felony offender.

  4. People v. Williams

    176 Misc. 2d 451 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1998)

    The defendant admitted to convictions for two prior violent felonies to which he had no constitutional challenge, so on May 18, 1995, the defendant was adjudicated a persistent violent felony offender and sentenced to imprisonment from 10 years to life. Thereafter, on March 14, 1997, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the defendant's conviction ( People v Williams, 237 A.D.2d 982, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 866). The defendant was then offered a plea bargain wherein he would plead guilty to the crime of burglary in the second degree with a sentence promise of incarceration from eight years to life, but he rejected this offer and decided he wanted to be retried.