You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

Supreme Court Case Relied Upon to Vacate Convictions by Guilty Plea Where Defendant Not Informed of Possibility of Deportation Can Not Be Applied Retroactively

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversed the sentencing court’s vacation of defendant’s conviction (by guilty plea).  The sentencing court had reversed the conviction on the ground defendant had not been informed of the risk of deportation based on the plea.  The sentencing court’s ruling was based upon the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010), which the sentencing court determined should be applied retroactively.  The First Department explained that Padilla should not be applied retroactively, overruling First Department and 3rd Department precedent:

Padilla has been accorded retroactive application by this Court …and the 3rd Department…. However, since Padilla “marks a break from both Federal and State law precedents . . . and fundamentally alters the Federal constitutional landscape, the principles of retroactivity developed by the Supreme Court in construing Federal constitutional law govern the disposition of this case” (People v Eastman, 85 NY2d 265, 275 [1995]).

The holding that Padilla announced new law, by which this Court is bound, dictates the conclusion that it has no retroactive application. As Eastman explains:  “Pursuant to Teague, new rules of constitutional criminal procedure are applied retrospectively in one of two situations: (1) where the new rule places certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law making authority to proscribe’ or (2) where the new rule alters a bedrock procedural element of criminal procedure which implicates the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the trial” (Eastman, 85 NY2d at 275, quoting Teague, 489 US at 311-312).

The rule announced in Padilla does neither, merely prescribing a duty imposed on counsel, and does not warrant retroactive application. Thus, defendant may not avail himself of the ruling… People v Verdejo, 2013 NY Slip Op 04913, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

,

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Required Reversal

In reversing the defendant’s conviction, the Third Department determined the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel:

Here, defense counsel did not give an opening statement. The People produced five witnesses and, during their testimony, there were no objections despite some objectionable questions. The  People’s  exhibits  were  received  without  objection,  including one  after proof  was  closed. Cross-examination, when conducted, was cursory and elicited little information that  would  be  useful or pertinent to a defense strategy. No witnesses were called on behalf of defendant.    Defense counsel’s summation,  which  was  only four sentences, started with the unhelpful comment  that “the reason we are here today is because [defendant] was unable to successfully  enter  a  plea  of  guilty by  way  of  providing an adequate  colloquy,”  and  added  little else  other  than  the conclusory request  for “the  [c]ourt  to  consider  this matter simply in regard to whether  there is reasonable doubt.” With no opening statement, no witnesses called and a feckless summation, counsel’s strategy  of  defense  is not apparent. In  addition,  pretrial efforts to  suppress  or  limit evidence – such as defendant’s statement to police and evidence about  uncharged  conduct  –  were  not  pursued. People v Bush, 105005, 3rd Dept 6-25-13

 

, , ,

Article 78 Petition in Nature of Prohibition Against Judge and District Attorney Granted

The Second Department explained the criteria for an Article 78 action (against a judge and district attorney) in the nature of prohibition.  In this case Supreme Court had ordered defendant to appear for resentencing after the Appellate Division had ruled without remitting the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings.  The Second Department granted the petition and prohibited the resentencing:

The remedy of prohibition generally lies when a court or an officer acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction or exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction (see CPLR 7803[2];…). To warrant the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, it is not enough that the court made a mere legal error. Rather, the court’s error must implicate its very powers and thereby be subject to correction by prohibition….  Matter of Dow v Tomei, 2013 NY Slip Op 04799, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

, , , ,

Defendant May Not Be Cross-Examined About Criminal Conviction on Direct Appeal

In reversing defendant’s assault conviction, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined a defendant with a conviction pending appeal may not be cross-examined about the underlying facts of that conviction until direct appeal has been exhausted.  Judge Lippman wrote:

At trial, the defense was justification and defendant planned to testify, but the People received permission, after a Sandoval hearing, to cross-examine him about his recent rape conviction, still pending on direct appeal, as well as the underlying facts, and the sentence he received. After the People rested, defense counsel asked the court to reconsider the Sandoval ruling, objecting that an appeal of the rape conviction was pending and, therefore, cross-examination about the conviction and its underlying facts would violate defendant’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, but the court adhered to its ruling. Defendant did not testify and was convicted of third-degree assault. Subsequently, his conviction for rape was reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel, his prior attorney having failed to impeach the complainant with exculpatory hospital records…. Defendant was retried and acquitted.  * * *

…[I]n ruling that the prosecution could cross-examine defendant about the underlying facts of his rape conviction, presumably the court was not implying that defendant could not assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to those questions. However, “taking the Fifth,” is highly prejudicial as to both the instant case and the conviction pending appeal. To a jury, it appears as though defendant is admitting the truth of the leading questions posed by the prosecutor; “[i]t exerts an undeniable chilling effect upon a real ‘choice’ whether to testify in one’s own behalf” …. More problematic, defendant must invoke the Fifth Amendment as to both exculpatory and inculpatory questions to protect himself; otherwise he might waive the privilege… .  People v Cantave, No 129, CtApp 6-25-13

 

, ,

Legal Malpractice Action Based Upon Course of Action Taken in Immigration Proceedings Reinstated

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, the First Department reinstated a cause of action for legal malpractice in an immigration case.  The complaint alleged a law firm followed an unreasonable course of action in pursuing plaintiff’s application for adjustment of immigration status which led to her removal:

Given plaintiff’s allegations that she had no chance of obtaining immigration relief and that defendants failed to thoroughly discuss the possibility, if not certainty, of reinstatement of the order of deportation and removal upon submission of the application, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that defendants followed an unreasonable course of action in pursuing the application …. Moreover, she has sufficiently alleged proximate cause, because the submission of the application alerted authorities to her status, which led to the issuance of the reinstatement order and ultimately to her removal…. Plaintiff’s unlawful status alone did not trigger her removal, since she had resided in the United States, albeit unlawfully, for more than six years; she was removed only after defendants affirmatively alerted immigration authorities to her presence. The record does not indicate on this motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 that plaintiff would have otherwise come to the attention of the immigration authorities. Without discovery on the issue, it cannot yet be said, as defendants assert, that plaintiff would have been deported regardless of defendants’ malpractice. Indeed, had plaintiff waited four more years she would have been eligible to apply for reinstatement under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(ii), which provides that an alien in plaintiff’s position can apply for admission if more than ten years have passed from the date of the alien’s last departure from the United States. Delgado v Bretz & Coven, LLP, 2013 NY Slip Op 04720, 1st Dept, 6-20-13

 

,

Improper to Characterize Trial as “Search for Truth”

The Fourth Department noted that the prosecutor’s characterization of the trial as “a search for the truth” was improper (but did not warrant reversal).  People v Ward, 758, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Proper Procedures for Handling Pro Se Motions to Withdraw Guilty Pleas (Alleging Coercion by Defense Counsel) Explained

The Court of Appeals considered two cases in which, after pleading guilty, the defendant made a pro se motion to withdraw the plea, claiming coercion and undue pressure by defense counsel. In both cases the sentencing judge asked for the defense attorney’s position on the pro se motion, which forced both attorneys to take a position adverse to the client’s, which, in turn, required the assignment of new counsel.  The Court explained how the situation should be handled:

…[W]hen a motion to withdraw a plea is patently insufficient on its face, a court may simply deny the motion without making any inquiry. When certain actions or inaction on the part of defense counsel are challenged on the motion, it may very well be necessary for defense counsel to address the matter when asked to by the court. When doing so, defense counsel should be afforded the opportunity to explain his performance with respect to the plea …, but may not take a position on the motion that is adverse to the defendant …. At that point, a conflict of interest arises, and the court must assign a new attorney to represent the defendant on the motion. People v  Mitchell …, Nos 116, 117, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

, ,

Beating of Child Combined with Two-Hour Delay in Seeking Help Constituted Depraved Indifference

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott which addressed both the proof requirements for depraved indifference murder and ineffective assistance of counsel, determined that the brutal beating of a 15-month-old baby combined with the failure to summon assistance for 2 hours met the criteria for depraved indifference to human life.  The Court found that the facts proved a brutal course of conduct over a prolonged or extended period of time.  In explaining the operative principles, Judge Pigott wrote:

This appeal is governed by the requirement that, in proving the existence of “circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,” the People must show that, at the time the crime occurred, defendant had a mens rea of “utter disregard for the value of human life” …. Put simply, the People must prove that defendant did not care whether his victim lived or died … . Additionally, the People must prove a second mens rea, namely recklessness. * * *

A brutal course of conduct against a vulnerable victim occurring over a prolonged or extended period of time is more likely to be associated with the mental state of depraved indifference to human life than brutality that is short in duration and is not repeated. This is because the actor had the opportunity to regret his actions and display caring, but failed to take the opportunity. In the present case, defendant argues that his course of conduct against the child was not prolonged. But defendant’s argument focuses exclusively on the duration of his physical assault on the child, which may have been brief. However, this argument ignores the evidence that, by his later inaction “ his failure, over some two hours, to seek medical attention for the child “ defendant turned a brutal assault into a brutal and prolonged course of conduct against a vulnerable victim.  People v Barboni, 102, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

,

Court’s Failure to Inquire About Potential Conflict of Interest and Failure to Follow Statutory Procedure for Jury Note Did Not Require Reversal

The Third Department determined the trial court’s failure to directly inquire into defendant’s awareness of the risks associated with his attorney’s potential conflict of interest and the trial court’s failure to follow the statutory procedure with respect to a note from the jury during deliberations did not require reversal:

Early in these proceedings, defendant’s trial counsel informed County Court of a potential conflict of interest based upon the prior representation of a prosecution witness by another attorney in counsel’s law firm. Although counsel informed the court that defendant had no objection, County Court erred by failing to directly inquire into defendant’s awareness of the potential risks and  his willingness to waive any  potential conflict … . * * *

While the better practice would  have  been  for County  Court to read the note on the record prior to responding to it and we do not condone the court’s curtailment of counsel’s argument, the record reflects that counsel was aware  of the specific content of the note and  we  are satisfied that counsel had  a full opportunity to explain his position as to the meaning  of “duly served.”  Under  these circumstances, defense counsel can be  said to have meaningfully participated in the response to the note… .  People v Cooper, 104749, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

, ,

Introduction of Statements Made to Police In Absence of Counsel When Defendant Was Represented by Counsel on a Another Matter Deemed Harmless Error

The Court of Appeals determined that defendant’s murder conviction should stand, even though he was questioned in violation of his right to counsel:

While in jail for a violation of probation (VOP), defendant was twice questioned by police about the victim’s disappearance, the second time after her body had been discovered. Counsel was not present. Defendant claims that his constitutional right to counsel was violated because he was represented by counsel on the VOP at the time, as evidenced by the notation made on an arraignment memorandum by the Town Justice who arraigned him on the VOP.

Assuming, without deciding, that defendant’s indelible right to counsel was violated, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt…. There is no reasonable possibility that the introduction of the two challenged statements affected defendant’s conviction in view of the other evidence, including two counseled statements to police and testimony of numerous witnesses, that overwhelmingly established his guilt.  People v Augustine, No 109, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy