You are here: / VACATE CONVICTION

Tag Archive for: VACATE CONVICTION

, ,

Motion to Vacate a Conviction Can Be Based Upon a Freestanding Claim of Actual Innocence—All Reliable Evidence, Even If Previously Barred at Trial or After Prior Motions to Vacate, May Be Presented at the Hearing

In a comprehensive opinion by Justice Hinds-Radix, the Second Department determined that a CPL 440 motion to vacate a conviction can be based upon a “freestanding claim of actual innocence.”  The defendant, who had brought several unsuccessful 440 motions, was deemed to have presented sufficient evidence of actual innocence to justify a hearing, in which all reliable evidence previously barred could be presented and considered:

The Due Process Clause in the New York State Constitution provides “greater protection than its federal counterpart as construed by the Supreme Court” … . Since a person who has not committed any crime has a liberty interest in remaining free from punishment, the conviction or incarceration of a guiltless person, which deprives that person of freedom of movement and freedom from punishment and violates elementary fairness, runs afoul of the Due Process Clause of the New York Constitution (see NY Const, art I, § 6… ). Moreover, because punishing an actually innocent person is inherently disproportionate to the acts committed by that person, such punishment also violates the provision of the New York Constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments (see NY Const, art I, § 5…). Thus, we conclude that a freestanding claim of actual innocence may be addressed pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h), which provides for vacating a judgment which was obtained in violation of an accused’s constitutional rights… . * * *

At the hearing, all reliable evidence, including evidence not admissible at trial based upon a procedural bar—such as the failure to name certain alibi witnesses in the alibi notice—should be admitted … . If the defendant establishes his actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, the indictment should be dismissed pursuant to CPL 440.10(4), which authorizes that disposition where appropriate. There is no need to empanel another jury to consider the defendant’s guilt where the trial court has determined, after a hearing, that no juror, acting reasonably, would find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  People v Hamilton, 2014 NY Slip Op 00238, 2nd Dept 1-15-14

 

,

Hearing Required to Determine If Criminal Investigation of Defense Counsel Affected the Conduct of the Defense (Re: CPL 440.10 Motion to Vacate the Conviction)

The Court of Appeals determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction.  Defendant’s attorney was the subject of a criminal investigation by the district attorney’s office during defendant’s trial.  The investigation of the attorney was not related to the charges against the defendant.  Therefore an automatic reversal was not required.  A hearing was necessary to determine if the conduct of the defense was affected by a conflict of interest (the district attorney’s investigation of defendant’s lawyer):

We reject defendant’s request to require automatic reversal anytime the defense attorney is under investigation or being prosecuted by the same district attorney’s office that is trying his client.  Indeed, in People v Konstantinides (14 NY3d 1, 13 [2009]), we declined to adopt such a per se rule in a case where a defense attorney was accused of criminal misconduct (witness tampering, bribery and suborning perjury) in relation to a witness in his client’s case.  An actual conflict would exist where a defense attorney was implicated in the crimes for which his client stood trial, but that was not the situation in Konstantinides and is certainly not the case here.  Accordingly, to obtain relief, defendant must demonstrate at a hearing on his 440.10 application that “the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest, or that the conflict operated on the representation” … .  People v Payton, 232, CtApp 12-12-13

 

, ,

Defendant Who Was Not Informed His Guilty Plea Would Result in Deportation Was Unable to Demonstrate He Was Prejudiced by the Omission

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction, in spite of his counsel’s failure to inform him his guilty plea would result in deportation. The court determined that, under the specific facts of the case, there was no “reasonable probability” defendant would not have entered a guilty plea had he been informed of the mandatory deportation:

Under the State and Federal Constitutions, a defendant has the right to the effective assistance of counsel (see US Const, 6th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6…).  Under the Federal Constitution, defense counsel is ineffective when his or her performance “f[a]ll[s] below an objective standard of reasonableness” under “prevailing professional norms” (Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687-688 [1984]).  Even if counsel’s performance is deficient, however, the defendant’s conviction will not be reversed unless “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different” (id. at 694-695).  In the plea context, the defendant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … .  Whether the defendant can show such a “reasonable probability” will often turn, as it does here, on credibility determinations which, if they have support in the record, we cannot review… . * * *

…[W]e conclude that there is support for the lower courts’ determination that defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that, if counsel had informed him that he was certain to be deported as a result of his guilty plea, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial… .  People v Hernandez, 211, CtApp 11-19-13

 

Failure to Disclose Witness Was a Paid Informant Required Vacation of Conviction

The Fourth Department reversed County Court, finding that defendant’s CPL 440 motion seeking vacation of the conviction should have been granted.  The People failed to disclose that a prosecution witness was a paid informant:

We note at the outset that the following quote from People v Fuentes (12 NY3d 259, 263, rearg denied 13 NY3d 766) is instructive: “[t]he Due Process Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions both guarantee a criminal defendant the right to discover favorable evidence in the People’s possession material to guilt or punishment .. . [, and i]mpeachment evidence falls within the ambit of a prosecutor’s Brady obligation . . . To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material . . . In New York, where a defendant makes a specific request for a document, the materiality element is established provided there exists a ‘reasonable possibility’ that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” … .

Here, there is no dispute that defendant satisfied the first element of the Fuentes test inasmuch as the People do not dispute that the prosecution witness at issue was a paid informant and do not contend that evidence of the status of that witness is not favorable to defendant.  … “[T]he mandate of Brady extends beyond any particular prosecutor’s actual knowledge” …, and “ ‘the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police’ ” … .

We further conclude that the court should have granted defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion insofar as it sought vacatur of the judgment of conviction on the basis of the Brady issue.  Here, defendant made a specific request for Brady material including agreements between the People and their witnesses, disclosure of whether any information was provided by an informant, and the substance of that informant’s information.  We conclude that “there exists a ‘reasonable possibility’ that [such material] would have changed the result of the proceedings”… .  People v Gayden…, 1095, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

,

Newly Discovered Evidence Required Vacation of Murder Conviction

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s vacation of a murder conviction (pursuant to a CPL 440.10 motion) based upon newly discovered evidence.  At a hearing, the defendant presented evidence calling into question the testimony of two witnesses who had claimed to have seen the shooting:

CPL 440.10(1)(g) provides that a court may vacate a judgment of conviction upon the ground that: “New evidence has been discovered since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial, which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant; provided that a motion based upon such ground must be made with due diligence after the discovery of such alleged new evidence.” The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence every fact essential to support the motion (see CPL 440.30[6]…). The power to vacate a judgment of conviction on the ground of newly discovered evidence rests within the discretion of the hearing court … . The court must make its final decision based upon the likely cumulative effect of the new evidence had it been presented at trial … .

Contrary to the People’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant satisfied his burden of proof and that the likely cumulative effect of the newly discovered evidence, including the evidence of the broad conspiracy to pay the eyewitnesses to implicate the defendant as the shooter, would have been a verdict more favorable to the defendant … . People v Singh, 2013 NY Slip Op 07508, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

,

People Could Not Appeal Judge’s Vacation of Defendant’s Conviction and Sentencing as a Youthful Offender—No Statute Allows Such an Appeal

In dismissing the People’s appeal, the Second Department explained that there was no statutory right for an appeal of the judge’s vacating defendant’s conviction and sentencing defendant as a youthful offender.  The only vehicle for the People was an article 78 prohibition proceeding:”

The Criminal Procedure Law expressly enumerates and describes the orders appealable by the People to the Appellate Division in a criminal case (see CPL 450.20…), and “[n]o appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless specifically provided for by statute” … . As no statute authorizes an appeal by the People to the Appellate Division from an order, in effect, vacating a conviction and adjudicating a defendant a youthful offender (see CPL 450.20), the People’s appeal must be dismissed …. The proper vehicle for challenging the Supreme Court’s determination is a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition… . People v Tony C, 2013 NY Slip Op 07055, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

,

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Mandated New Trial—Difference Between Federal and State Ineffectiveness Criteria Explained

In determining the defendant was entitled to a new trial because of the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel, the Second Department explained the difference between the federal and state criteria for ineffective assistance.  Supreme Court had vacated defendant’s murder conviction (ineffective assistance) but allowed the conviction for criminal possession of a weapon to stand.  The Second Department explained that, even though there was evidence to support the criminal possession of a weapon charge, the state ineffective assistance criteria required a new trial on all counts:

A defendant is guaranteed the effective assistance of counsel under both the federal and state constitutions (see US Const, amend VI; NY Const, art I, § 6…). The state standard is considered “somewhat more favorable to defendants,” focusing on “the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case” …. “[T]he constitutional requirements [for the effective assistance of counsel] are met when the defense attorney provides meaningful representation” …. While prejudice to the defendant is a necessary factor under the federal standard, embodied in a “but for” test …, under the state standard, “a defendant’s showing of prejudice is a significant but not indispensable element in assessing meaningful representation” …. “To meet the New York standard, a defendant need not demonstrate that the outcome of the case would have been different but for counsel’s errors” … . Generally, harmless error analysis is inapplicable to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim arising from counsel’s performance at trial … .

Here, the litany of failures by defense counsel documented by the Supreme Court established that the defendant was denied “meaningful representation” by his trial attorney. Notwithstanding the fact that there was strong evidence that the defendant possessed a loaded firearm during the incident in question, the New York State constitutional standard for the effective assistance of counsel “is ultimately concerned with the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case” … . People v Canales, 2013 NY Slip Op 06376, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

,

DNA Evidence Which Excluded Defendant Was Not Enough to Warrant Vacation of Conviction, or Even a Hearing on the Motion to Vacate

Defendant was convicted of the rape of one victim and the murder of another during an incident in 1980.  Over a substantial dissent, the First Department determined that the recent DNA test results re: hairs found on the perpetrator’s hat and DNA found under the fingernails of the murder victim—results which ruled out the defendant—did not warrant vacation of defendant’s conviction pursuant to a CPL 440 motion, and did not warrant a hearing.  The First Department noted the strength of the identification evidence provided by the rape victim and the fact that only three of 18 hairs taken from the hat were tested by the defense.  The majority of the First Department wrote:

Defendant has not established that the newly discovered DNA evidence “is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to [him]” … * * *

In deciding a CPL 440.10 motion, a hearing to develop additional facts is not “invariably necessary”; rather, CPL 440.30 contemplates that a court will make an initial determination on the written submissions whether the motion can be decided without a hearing … . Here, we find that even if the reliability of the evidence is assumed, defendant still did not establish a legal basis for ordering a new trial. Accordingly, the factual disputes in this case were not material, and defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of a hearing.

The dissent wrote:

I respectfully dissent, because I believe the motion court should have granted defendant further DNA testing and held an evidentiary hearing before determining his motion under CPL 440.10.  People v Jones, 2013 NY Slip Op 05547, 1st Dept 8-6-13

 

 

,

Affidavit Stating that Third Party Confessed to Murder Required a Hearing Pursuant to a Motion to Vacate the Judgment of Conviction Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court finding that a hearing should be held on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based on newly discovered evidence.  The evidence was an affidavit from a person to whom a third person is alleged to have confessed to the murder.  The Fourth Department determined the hearsay statement could be considered as a basis for the 440 motion because it met the criteria of a statement against penal interest and, although there was no showing the declarant was unavailable (a criterium for admissibility under this hearsay exception), it was reasonable to assume the declarant would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to testify (thereby becoming unavailable).

We agree with defendant that where, as here, the declarations exculpate the defendant, they “are subject to a more lenient standard, and will be found ‘sufficient if [the supportive evidence] establish[es] a reasonable possibility that the statement might be true’ ”…. That is because “ ‘[d]epriving a defendant of the opportunity to offer into evidence [at trial] another person’s admission to the crime with which he or she has been charged, even though that admission may . . . be offered [only] as a hearsay statement, may deny a defendant his or her fundamental right to present a defense’ ” ….  Although the People contend that there is no evidence that the third party is unavailable, we conclude that, inasmuch as the statements attributed to the third party implicate him in a murder, there is a likelihood that, if called to testify at a trial, he would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and thus become unavailable … .  People v McFarland, 729, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Motion to Vacate Conviction Based upon Co-Defendant’s Affidavit Stating Defendant Not Involved Denied

In affirming the denial of a 440 motion to vacate defendant’s conviction based upon a co-defendant’s affidavit stating the defendant was not involved in the crimes, the Fourth Department wrote:

It is well settled that on a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction based on newly discovered evidence, the movant must establish, inter alia, that “there is newly discovered evidence: (1) which will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) which was discovered since the trial; (3) which could not have been discovered prior to trial; (4) which is material; (5) which is not cumulative; and[] (6) which does not merely impeach or contradict the record evidence” ….  People v Smith, 642, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy