People v. Gonzalez
145 A.D.3d 586
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2016Background:
- Defendant Luis Gonzalez was convicted after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree for facilitating a heroin sale.
- Undercover officer testified defendant led the officer to an identified accomplice, touted the heroin, accompanied them to a building, acted as a lookout during the sale, and stayed with the accomplice afterward.
- Trial court convicted and sentenced Gonzalez as a second felony drug offender with a prior violent felony to six years' imprisonment and three years' postrelease supervision (PRS).
- Defendant raised several challenges on appeal: that the verdict rejecting an agency/steering defense was against the weight of the evidence; that the court failed to follow O'Rama procedures when responding to a jury note; that the courtroom was improperly closed for undercover safety; and that his mandatory sentence raised constitutional concerns.
- Appellate Division affirmed conviction, held the weight-of-evidence verdict was proper, found any O'Rama error unpreserved and harmless, upheld the limited courtroom closure under Waller, rejected the preserved constitutional attack, but reduced PRS from three years to 1½ years because the court had said it was imposing the statutory minimum but imposed more.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of the evidence / agency (steerer) | Evidence showed Gonzalez acted as steerer/lookout, so conviction proper | He argued agency defense — that he was not part of the sale | Held: Verdict not against weight; reasonable to infer Gonzalez steered and stood lookout |
| O'Rama jury-note procedure | Court complied sufficiently when it reread portions of charge to jury | Court failed to consult counsel on the record outside jury as O'Rama requires | Held: Claim unpreserved; in interest of justice declined review; alternatively, any noncompliance was not prejudicial |
| Courtroom closure for undercover safety (Waller) | Limited closure justified by undercover officer still working in area, risk to safety | Defendant challenged closure as overbroad / insufficiently considered alternatives | Held: Overriding interest shown; court considered alternatives; closure upheld |
| Sentence challenge — constitutionality & PRS length | People defended mandatory minimum sentence and PRS imposed | Gonzalez argued constitutional infirmity of sentence and that court misstated PRS as minimum then imposed greater PRS | Held: Constitutional challenge unpreserved and not reviewed in interest of justice; alternatively rejected on merits. Court modified sentence to reduce PRS to 1½ years because court said it was imposing the minimum but imposed more |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342 (explains weight-of-evidence review standard)
- People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64 (discusses third-party agency/steerer defenses)
- People v O'Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270 (requires on-the-record consultation with counsel before replying to jury notes)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (framework for closure of courtroom to protect witness safety)
- People v Echevarria, 21 N.Y.3d 1 (recognizes undercover officer safety as substantial probability justifying closure)
- People v Snider, 49 A.D.3d 459 (O'Rama-related harmlessness analysis)
- People v Sykes, 135 A.D.3d 535 (upholding limited courtroom closure for undercover safety)
- People v Williams, 134 A.D.3d 639 (similar support for closure to protect undercover officers)
- People v Thompson, 83 N.Y.2d 477 (addresses sentencing discretion and challenges)
- People v Broadie, 37 N.Y.2d 100 (addresses sentencing principles and limits)