People v. Jacobs

Judges

Attorneys and Parties

Brief Summary

Background

Defendant, age 16 (an adolescent offender under CPL 1.20[44] [defines adolescent offender]), participated in a carjacking during which a codefendant possessed a firearm and fatally shot the victim. Defendant was indicted on murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree on an accomplice-liability theory (Penal Law § 20.00 [accessorial liability]). Under CPL 722.23 [procedure for removal of adolescent offender cases to Family Court; 6-day review; mandatory removal unless DA proves personal causation/display/sexual conduct; DA may move within 30 days to prevent removal upon extraordinary circumstances], the Youth Part held a 6-day review and, crediting the People’s showing, declined to remove. Defendant later pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree.

Lower Court Decision

County Court determined the People met their burden under CPL 722.23(2)(c)(i) that defendant 'caused significant physical injury'—relying on accomplice liability for the shooting—so no removal to Family Court was ordered. The court accepted a plea to attempted robbery in the first degree and obtained an appeal waiver.

Appellate Division Reversal

The court held the written appeal waiver was invalid because it inaccurately suggested an absolute bar to appeal and purported to waive all postconviction relief, contravening People v. Thomas. The court further held that a challenge to a Youth Part removal determination is not forfeited by a guilty plea because it concerns the integrity of the Raise the Age process and is time-sensitive. On the merits, the court interpreted CPL 722.23(2)(c) to require personal conduct by the adolescent—i.e., the adolescent must have directly caused the injury, displayed the weapon in their own hand, or personally engaged in the sexual conduct—citing legislative history. Applying criminal causation principles, the court found the People did not show defendant’s actions were a sufficiently direct cause of the victim’s death; the codefendant alone possessed and used the firearm, and defendant’s pounding on the car did not forge a causal link to the shooting. The court reversed, vacated the plea, and remitted for further Youth Part proceedings, including, if appropriate, a motion by the People within 30 days to prevent removal based on extraordinary circumstances under CPL 722.23(1). The court did not reach other issues. Two judges dissented, concluding the removal issue was forfeited by the guilty plea.

Legal Significance

Clarifies that disqualifying factors under CPL 722.23(2)(c) are based on the adolescent offender’s personal conduct and are not coextensive with accessorial liability; prosecutors must prove personal causation or personal weapon display to defeat mandatory removal. Establishes that challenges to Youth Part removal determinations can survive a guilty plea and that overbroad written appeal waivers are invalid under People v. Thomas. Reinforces legislative intent of Raise the Age to expedite access to Family Court services unless the statutory disqualifiers or extraordinary circumstances are properly shown.