TMN,
I agree with your point that this matter may not have been properly preserved for appeal. That was a good catch and frankly one that I failed to think of. However, given the fact that the last item in a court case is that the judge gives his ruling, theoretically, the defendant may not have had opportunity to object. I know that is kinda thin, but convicting the defendant for a charge he was not arraigned on is egregious. The appellate division may accept it.
I disagre with your perspective about it not being clear that prejudice occurred. I believe it is irrelevant that the defendant got a lesser sentence than she may have with the original charge. To illustrate, if I were charged with murder, but the court found me guilty of mail fraud (something I would not have been charged with), the fact that mail fraud carries a lesser sentence than murder does not mitigate the fact that I was not charged nor arraigned on mail fraud. Therefore, I had no opportunity to prepare a defense for mail fraud. Therefore, I was denied due process. You make the assumption that the defendant would have been convicted on the original charge. While she very well may have been... it is only speculation. Furthermore, even if she would have been convicted on the original charge, it does not mitigate her due process rights to defend herself against the charge she was actually convicted of.
Personally, I beleive that if the appellate division accepts the case, her win will be a slam dunk. But your point about not having the issue preserved for appeal is a very good one and I believe that would be the biggest concern. So, from the defendant's perspective, she really has nothing to lose. She can file the appeal. If it is accepted, she will likely win. If it is rejected, then she is no worse off than she is now.



