PEOPLE v. SNIPES (2019)

The court did not violate defendant's rights under CPL 310.30 and People v. O'Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189 (1991) by failing to place on the record and discuss in advance with the attorneys a jury note that unambiguously requested a specific exhibit in evidence.  The parties had agreed in advance to follow such a procedure in the event of a request for exhibits.  In any event, regardless of whether there was a prior agreement, “[n]otes that only require the ministerial act of sending exhibits into the jury room do not implicate the requirements of O'Rama ” (People v. Dunham, 172 A.D.3d 524, 524, 100 N.Y.S.3d 255 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 930, 109 N.Y.S.3d 748, 133 N.E.3d 454 [2019] ).  The note simply called for the delivery of the exhibit, and there was nothing that called for input from counsel.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ).  There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations.

In granting the People's CPL 440.40 motion to reinstate defendant's original sentence as a persistent violent felony offender, which had been set aside on a ground later rejected by the Court of Appeals in People v. Smith, 28 N.Y.3d 191, 43 N.Y.S.3d 771, 66 N.E.3d 641 (2016), the court correctly determined that defendant's 1999 guilty plea was not unconstitutionally obtained.  After a hearing, the court found that defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been aware of the postrelease supervision component of the 1999 sentence (see Smith, 28 N.Y.3d at 205, 43 N.Y.S.3d 771, 66 N.E.3d 641).  The record supports that finding.  We find it unnecessary to address the People's procedural arguments relating to this issue.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.