NY appeals court reverses robbery conviction over youth status

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has reversed a robbery conviction and sent the case back to the lower court to determine if the matter should be removed to Family Court because of the defendant’s age at the time of the crime.

Defendant Anthony Jacobs pleaded guilty in July 2022 before Monroe County Court Judge Stacey Romeo to attempted first-degree robbery.

The conviction was recently vacated by the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department.

Jacobs pleaded guilty to the charge for a carjacking committed when he was 16. During that incident, a codefendant fatally shot the victim.

Jacobs was initially indicted on charges of second-degree murder, and first-degree attempted robbery based on his liability as an accomplice.

Because of his age at the time of the offense, Jacobs was eligible for adolescent offender status in Family Court. And, because of the offenses charged, Romeo was required to schedule an appearance within six days of Jacobs’ arraignment to “review the accusatory instrument and any other relevant facts for the purpose of making a determination whether to order the removal of the action to Family Court,” according to the decision.

Romeo was required to order removal to Family Court unless the court determined that the prosecutor proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Jacobs “caused significant physical injury to a person other than a participant in the offense … displayed a firearm, shotgun, rifle or deadly weapon … or engaged in statutorily defined unlawful sexual contact,” according to the decision.

Romeo ruled that the prosecution met its burden of establishing that Jacobs caused significant physical injury to another person, and she did not move the case to Family Court.

Jacobs’ appellate attorney, Stephanie M. Stare, argued that Romeo erred by ruling that the prosecution established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant “caused significant physical injury to a person other than a participant in the offense.”

“We agree with defendant that the court erred in concluding that the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant “caused significant physical injury to a person other than a participant in the offense,” the majority ruled.

The prosecution’s evidence included witness statements and a video taken on the codefendant’s cell phone “supporting the conclusion that defendant was a knowing and willing participant in the carjacking,” the court wrote.

“That evidence also supported the conclusion, which the People do not dispute, that it was the codefendant who possessed the firearm, drove the vehicle that was used to stop the victim’s vehicle, and ultimately shot the victim,” the court wrote.

Romeo rejected the defense argument that the prosecution’s reliance solely on accomplice liability principles was insufficient to meet their burden. She ruled that Jacobs “caused significant injury to the victim such that he was disqualified from having the action removed to Family Court.”

“We agree with defendant that the court erred in drawing that conclusion,” the Fourth Department wrote.

“Inasmuch as defendant’s actions did not forge a link in the chain of events that actually brought about the victim’s death, the People failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant caused a significant injury to the victim,” the majority wrote.

But the prosecution still has 30 days to move to prevent removal to Family Court on the ground that extraordinary circumstances exist that should prevent the transfer to Family Court, according to the decision.

“We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, and remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings including, if appropriate, a motion to prevent removal,” the majority wrote.

Justices John M. Curran and Nancy E. Smith dissented.

“We respectfully dissent and vote to affirm inasmuch as we conclude that defendant’s contention that County Court erred in determining that the People established that he caused significant physical injury to the victim was forfeited by his guilty plea, thereby foreclosing this Court from reaching the merits of defendant’s contention,” they wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035