PEOPLE v. CHALOM (2022)

Defendant, Yvonne Chalom, moves this Court by notice of motion filed on January 24, 2020 for an order vacating her judgment of conviction from September 26, 2005, pursuant to CPL § 440.10. For reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED in its entirety, without the need for a hearing.

Factual Background and Procedural History

Defendant, a former NYC teacher, was convicted after a jury trial of 32 counts of Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree [P.L. §§ 240.30(1)(b) and (2)] against her school principal.

In 2007, Defendant's conviction became final, (People v. Chalom, 15 Misc 3d 133(A)) (App. Term 1st Dep't. 2007), and her subsequent CPL § 440.10 post-conviction application was denied. People v. Chalom, Decision and Order, Dkt. 2004NY039390 (NY Crim. Ct. 2008) (Jackson, J.). Ms. Chalom did not seek leave to appeal the 2008 denial, and had otherwise exhausted her state remedies. Defendant now moves this Court for an order vacating her 2005 judgment of conviction, as a retroactive consequence of the 2014 Court of Appeals ruling in People v. Golb, 23 NY3d 455 (2014).

Discussion

In 2014, the New York Court of Appeals declared the state criminal statute of Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree [P.L. § 240.30(1)(a)] unconstitutionally vague, and overbroad. People v. Golb, 23 NY3d 455 (2014).

When a criminal defendant has exhausted state remedies, that criminal judgment is deemed “final” for purposes of determining retroactive application of new law. People v. Williams, 75 Misc 3d 129(A) (App. Term 1st Dep't. 2022). For convictions on direct appeal, which derive from a criminal statute subsequently declared unconstitutional and the issue was preserved for judicial review, “there is no alternative but to give the decision retroactive effect for the declaration of unconstitutionality is a statement that the defendant has committed no crime.” People v. Cesaire, 127 AD3d 1226 (2nd Dep't. 2015); People v. Westwood, 53 Misc 3d 74 (App. Term 2nd Dep't. 2016).

Inasmuch as Defendant's conviction became final before the Court of Appeals ruling in Golb, and not having preserved a constitutional challenge to the statute, Defendant's current application must be denied. People v. Ellis, 65 Misc 3d 129(A) (App. Term 1st Dep't. 2022); People v. Ward, 136 AD3d 504 (1st Dep't. 2016).

To the extent Ms. Chalom claims ineffective assistance of counsel, such claim was adjudicated in prior proceedings, and does not raise new issues warranting vacatur of her convictions.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's CPL§ 440.10 motion is DENIED in its entirety without the need for a hearing.

This opinion constitutes the decision and Order of this Court.

Lumarie Maldonado-Cruz, J.