People v. Clarke
Docket 177 KA 20-00981
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02530
- Docket
- 177 KA 20-00981
Appeal from a judgment of conviction after a jury trial in Monroe County Court
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Trevor E. Clarke's convictions for multiple sexual offenses but reduced his aggregate prison exposure. The court rejected Clarke's argument that the guilty verdicts were against the weight of the evidence, finding credibility determinations for the jury. It declined to review an unpreserved constitutional claim about excluded defense questioning. The court found the original aggregate sentence of 52 years to life unduly harsh and, in the interest of justice, ordered two specified counts to run concurrently, reducing the aggregate sentence to 37 years to life while otherwise affirming the judgment.
Issues Decided
- Whether the jury verdicts convicting defendant of multiple sexual offenses were against the weight of the evidence
- Whether the trial court's exclusion of certain defense questioning deprived defendant of his constitutional right to present a defense
- Whether the aggregate sentence of 52 years to life was unduly harsh and warranted modification in the interest of justice
Court's Reasoning
The court gave deference to the jury's credibility determinations, concluding that inconsistencies in witness testimony raised credibility issues for the jury rather than undermining the verdicts. The defendant's constitutional challenge was unpreserved because he did not assert the right to introduce the excluded evidence at trial, so the court declined to review it. On sentencing, the court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice, finding the original aggregate sentence excessive and reducing exposure by directing two counts to run concurrently, producing a 37-years-to-life aggregate term.
Authorities Cited
- People v Danielson9 NY3d 342 (2007)
- People v Bleakley69 NY2d 490 (1987)
- CPL 470.15
Parties
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Appellant
- Trevor E. Clarke
- Judge
- Douglas A. Randall
- Attorney
- Sarah S. Holt (Conflict Defender)
- Attorney
- Brian P. Green (District Attorney)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Judgment of conviction rendered
- 2020-05-28
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult defense counsel about further appeal options
Discuss whether any preserved issues remain for appeal to a higher court or whether to seek leave to appeal or other post-conviction relief based on preserved claims.
- 2
Request clarification of sentencing orders
Ensure the trial court's commitment papers and prison designation reflect the appellate modification that counts 2 and 6 run concurrently.
- 3
Consider post-conviction relief review
Evaluate potential motions (e.g., for a new trial or ineffective assistance) based on the trial record and any newly discovered evidence with counsel.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide overall?
- The court affirmed the convictions but reduced the aggregate prison exposure by ordering two counts to run concurrently, lowering the total sentence to 37 years to life.
- Does this mean the defendant is free?
- No. The convictions remain intact and the defendant continues to face a lengthy prison term, though reduced from the original aggregate sentence.
- Why didn't the court overturn the convictions despite inconsistent testimony?
- The appellate court deferred to the jury's role in judging witness credibility and concluded that inconsistencies were matters for the jury to resolve, not grounds to overturn the verdicts.
- Can the sentencing change be appealed again?
- The decision modified the sentence as an exercise of the appellate court's authority; further appellate options may be limited but counsel can advise about any remaining post-conviction or appellate remedies.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Clarke - 2026 NY Slip Op 02530 People v Clarke 2026 NY Slip Op 02530 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v TREVOR E. CLARKE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 177 KA 20-00981 Present: Curran, J.P., Montour, Smith, Ogden, And Delconte, JJ. SARAH S. HOLT, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KATHLEEN P. REARDON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. BRIAN P. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (GRAZINA HARPER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Douglas A. Randall, J.), rendered May 28, 2020. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree (five counts), sexual abuse in the third degree, predatory sexual assault against a child (three counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts). It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by directing that the sentences of incarceration imposed on counts 2 and 6 of the indictment shall run concurrently with each other and as modified the judgment is affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of five counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [1], [4]), three counts of predatory sexual assault against a child (former § 130.96), one count of sexual abuse in the third degree (§ 130.55), and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). Defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. We reject that contention. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Where, as here, "witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence, the appellate court must give '[g]reat deference . . . [to the] fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor' " ( People v Harris , 15 AD3d 966, 967 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 831 [2005], quoting Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495; see People v Streeter , 118 AD3d 1287, 1288 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1068 [2014], reconsideration denied 24 NY3d 1047 [2014]). Although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we cannot conclude that the jurors " 'failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded' " ( People v Bailey , 239 AD3d 1375, 1376 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1009 [2025]). Any inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses merely presented credibility issues for the jury to resolve ( see People v Cerroni , 225 AD3d 1117, 1120 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 1017 [2024]; People v Watts , 218 AD3d 1171, 1173-1174 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1013 [2023]; People v Woolson , 122 AD3d 1353, 1355 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1078 [2015]). Defendant further contends that County Court deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense when it precluded him from questioning one of the victims about statements she attributed to defendant that she had previously attributed to a third party. We conclude that "defendant did not assert a constitutional right to introduce the excluded evidence at trial," and that his constitutional claim is therefore unpreserved for our review ( People v Simmons , 106 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1043 [2013]; see People v Garrow , 126 AD3d 1362, 1363 [4th Dept 2015]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, we agree with defendant that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. "The determination of an appropriate sentence requires the exercise of discretion after due consideration given to, among other things, the crime[s] charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction, i.e., societal protection, rehabilitation and deterrence" ( People v Farrar , 52 NY2d 302, 305 [1981]). Here, although defendant's conduct was heinous and despicable, we conclude that the aggregate prison sentence of 52 years to life is not justified under the circumstances of this case ( see People v Franklin , 206 AD3d 1610, 1613 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1150 [2022]). In contrast to the aggregate sentence imposed by the court, which effectively guarantees a life sentence without the possibility of parole, we conclude that a prison sentence aggregating to 37 years to life is an appropriate sanction for the crimes committed ( see id. ). We therefore modify the judgment, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by directing that the sentences of incarceration imposed on counts 2 and 6 of the indictment shall run concurrently with each other ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn