People v. Pimentel
149 A.D.3d 505
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Pimentel pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree as a crime of terrorism and was sentenced as a second felony offender to 16 years (Supreme Court, NY County).
- Judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department.
- Defendant validly waived his right to appeal, but the court found that some claims regarding the terrorism statute survive appeal waiver.
- Statute at issue is Penal Law § 490.25(1), defining a crime of terrorism based in part on intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy.
- Issues on appeal centered on preemption (federal), vagueness, and First Amendment/constitutional challenges to the statute; the sentence challenge was addressed but the waiver foreclosed relief.
- Court held the statute and the defendant’s challenges do not warrant reversal; preemption and vagueness findings were against defendant, and the sentence was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption by federal law | Pimentel argues federal law preempts state terrorism statute. | Pimentel contends federal framework dominates; state law invalid where preempted. | Not preempted; state statute remains valid |
| Vagueness of Penal Law § 490.25(1) | Statute vague as to 'intent to intimidate or coerce' and other terms. | Vagueness arguments lack force given controlling interpretations. | Not unconstitutionally vague |
| First Amendment/State Constitution challenges | Statute imposes content-based restrictions or overbreadth on speech. | Punishment lawful; overbreadth not substantial in relation to statute's legitimate sweep. | No First Amendment/NY Constitution violation; not overbroad |
| Impact of appeal waiver on excessive-sentence challenge | Waiver should not bar review of potential excessiveness. | Waiver bars such challenges; merits consideration unnecessary. | Waiver forecloses excessive-sentence claim |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kozlowski, 47 A.D.3d 111 (1st Dept 2007) (preemption concerns in terrorism statute)
- People v. Muniz, 91 N.Y.2d 570 (1998) (claims not waived by plea may survive appeal waiver)
- People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737 (2006) (valid waiver of appeal and scope of waivers)
- People v. Morales, 20 N.Y.3d 240 (2012) (statutory construction of 'intent to intimidate' concerns)
- People v. Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d 412 (2003) (vagueness considerations for criminal statutes)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (speech restrictions and national security context)
- Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (overbreadth and punishment for protected characteristics)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (federal-state balance in counterterrorism)
- United Auto., Aircraft & Agr. Implement Workers of Am. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Bd., 351 U.S. 266 (1956) (federal interest in counterterrorism cooperation)