## Facts

- Leonel Castillo was tried before a jury on charges arising from two separate events at the same apartment, occurring two days apart in August 1975.
- For the August 27 incident, Castillo was charged with first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, and first-degree sexual abuse based on allegations that he entered the apartment, stole money, and sexually abused the resident.
- For the August 29 incident, Castillo was charged with attempted burglary after the apartment’s residents allegedly saw him on an exterior window ledge of their apartment.
- The trial court entered judgments of conviction on all counts after the jury returned guilty verdicts.
- On appeal, the Appellate Division dismissed the convictions tied to the August 27 incident “on the facts and in the interest of justice,” citing a substantial possibility of misidentification.
- The Appellate Division left intact the attempted-burglary conviction tied to the August 29 incident and remanded the case for resentencing on that surviving count to remove any influence the dismissed convictions may have had on the sentence.
- Castillo appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, challenging both the remaining conviction and the Appellate Division’s authority to grant partial relief in this manner.

## Issues

1. Did the Appellate Division have authority under the Criminal Procedure Law to dismiss certain counts “on the facts and in the interest of justice,” while affirming a different count from the same trial and remanding only for resentencing on that surviving count?
2. Did any claimed trial error—including asserted prejudice from trying the two incidents together—require reversal of the surviving attempted-burglary conviction?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order as modified.
- The court held that the Appellate Division acted within its statutory authority when it dismissed some counts on the facts and in the interest of justice yet left another count standing.
- The court rejected Castillo’s claim that the remaining attempted-burglary conviction had to be reversed because other counts from the same trial were dismissed, concluding there was no reversible error requiring a new trial on the surviving count.
- The remand for resentencing on the attempted-burglary conviction remained the appropriate remedy to address any possible effect the dismissed counts may have had on sentencing.

## Legal Principles

- Under CPL 470.15, the Appellate Division is authorized to “reverse or modify” a criminal judgment “in whole or in part” on the law, the facts, or as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice; this permits count-by-count relief.
- The Appellate Division may dismiss certain counts on factual review and interest-of-justice grounds without being required to disturb every conviction returned at the same trial.
- The fact that some convictions are later dismissed does not, by itself, compel reversal of a separate conviction from the same trial; the surviving count stands unless an error affecting that count requires reversal.
- When some counts are set aside, remand for resentencing on the remaining count is a proper method to ensure the sentence is based only on the valid conviction.

## Conclusion

The New York Court of Appeals upheld the Appellate Division’s selective dismissal of the more serious counts from the first incident while leaving the attempted-burglary conviction from the second incident intact, holding that the Criminal Procedure Law allows partial modification of a judgment and that no reversible trial error required overturning the remaining conviction; resentencing on the surviving count was an adequate remedy for any possible sentencing effect from the dismissed convictions.


People v. Castillo, 391 N.E.2d 997 (1979)