Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dwight Giles, Appellant; The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sean Hawkins, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-12-18
Citations: 24 N.Y.3d 1066
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwight Giles, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Hawkins, Appellant.
Judges: Judges Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera concur; Judge Smith in a separate concurring opinion in which Judges Read and Pigott concur; Judge Abdus-Salaam dissents in part in an opinion in which Chief Judge Lippman concurs.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 1066–1078

Head Matter:
[25 NE3d 943, 2 NYS3d 30]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwight Giles, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Hawkins, Appellant.
Argued November 19, 2014;
decided December 18, 2014
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled action.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Sheryl Feldman and Naomi C. Reed of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action.
Michael W. Warren, Brooklyn, for appellant in the second above-entitled action.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Sholom J. Twer sky and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled action.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
In People v Giles, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. In People v Hawkins, the order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.
Defendants' motions to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) were procedurally improper because they were premised on matters outside the existing trial record, and CPL 330.30 (1) did not permit defendants to expand the record to include matters that did not "appear[ ] in the record" prior to the filing of the motions. We express no opinion on whether a trial court has the authority to consider a CPL 330.30 (1) motion as a premature de facto CPL 440.10 motion in certain cases because defendants here did not ask the trial courts to consider their motions as such, and in each case, the trial court neither deemed the motion to be a premature CPL 440.10 motion nor decided the motion in accordance with the criteria and procedures delineated in CPL 440.30 (cf. People v Wolf, 98 NY2d 105, 118-119 [2002]). In People v Giles, defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of his sentencing as a persistent felony offender is without merit (see People v Bell, 15 NY3d 935, 936 [2010]; People v Battles, 16 NY3d 54, 59 [2010]; People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116, 129-130 [2009]).