People v. Mitchell, N.Y., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Attorney(S)

Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City (Rebekah J. Pazmiño of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled action. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Richard J. Ramsay, Joseph N. Ferdenzi and Peter D. Coddington of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Two consolidated appeals from the Court of Appeals of New York arising from pro se motions to withdraw guilty pleas.

People v. Mitchell. Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of murder in the second degree. Prior to sentencing he filed a pro se motion to withdraw the plea, alleging, among other things, that defense counsel coerced him into pleading guilty. When the court asked defense counsel if he had anything to say, counsel initially stated he did not adopt the merits of the motion but expressed concern that silence might be construed as assent; the court indicated it would assign new counsel, then permitted defense counsel to be heard and counsel took a position contrary to the defendant's coercion claim. After proceedings with newly assigned counsel, the motion was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence (89 A.D.3d 628, 933 N.Y.S.2d 271 [1st Dept.2011]).

People v. Deliser. Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree in satisfaction of two indictments. He later filed a pro se motion to withdraw those pleas, asserting coercion, including alleged undue pressure by defense counsel. Defense counsel described his actions and stated that the People had “two strong cases” and that the plea was knowing and in the defendant's best interest. The court read portions of the plea minutes and denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgments of conviction and sentence (85 A.D.3d 1047, 925 N.Y.S.2d 882 [2d Dept.2011]), concluding, among other things, that defendant's attorney did not take a position adverse to the motion. A Judge of the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal both cases.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and the scope of the motion court's fact-finding discretion.
Whether, when defense counsel takes a position contrary to the defendant's claim on a motion to withdraw a plea, the trial court must assign new counsel (i.e., whether counsel may properly take an adverse position without substitution).
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to assign new counsel in People v. Deliser.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant(s)' Arguments

Both defendants filed pro se motions to withdraw guilty pleas, asserting their pleas had been coerced and, in Deliser, that defense counsel exerted undue pressure.

Defense Counsel's Statements (as reflected in the record)

In Mitchell, defense counsel initially declined to adopt the motion's factual assertions, then—after expressing concern about silence being construed as assent—was permitted to be heard and voiced opposition to the defendant's coercion claim.
In Deliser, defense counsel described actions taken for the defendant and stated his view that the People had strong cases and that the defendant made a knowing plea in his best interest.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
People v. Boyd, 22 N.Y.2d 707, 291 N.Y.S.2d 816, 238 N.E.2d 923 [1968]	Establishes that a defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.	Cited as authority for the principle that counsel must effectively represent a defendant on such motions.
People v. Rozzell, 20 N.Y.2d 712, 282 N.Y.S.2d 775, 229 N.E.2d 452 [1967]	Establishes that right to effective assistance on plea-withdrawal motions.	Cited with People v. Boyd to support the settled right to counsel on these motions.
People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 [1974]	Describes the motion court's broad discretion and that a limited interrogation by the court will often suffice; evidentiary hearings are required only rarely.	Used to explain the scope of permissible inquiry by the motion court and when hearings are necessary.
People v. Nelson, 7 N.Y.3d 883, 826 N.Y.S.2d 593, 860 N.E.2d 56 [2006]	Holds that defense counsel should be afforded the opportunity to explain his performance with respect to the plea.	Cited to support that counsel may be asked to explain performance but subject to limits on taking adverse positions.
People v. Kennedy, 22 N.Y.2d 280, 282, 292 N.Y.S.2d 625, 239 N.E.2d 510 [1968]	Holds that defense counsel may not take a position on a motion that is adverse to the defendant; doing so creates a conflict requiring assignment of new counsel.	Applied as the rule that a conflict arises if counsel takes an adverse position, obligating the court to assign new counsel for the motion.
People v. Mitchell, 89 A.D.3d 628, 933 N.Y.S.2d 271 [1st Dept.2011]	Appellate Division decision affirming the trial court's denial of the plea-withdrawal motion in the Mitchell case.	Referenced as the Appellate Division's prior disposition; the Court of Appeals affirmed that order.
People v. Deliser, 85 A.D.3d 1047, 925 N.Y.S.2d 882 [2d Dept.2011]	Appellate Division decision affirming the trial court's denial of the plea-withdrawal motions in Deliser, concluding defense counsel did not take an adverse position.	Referenced as the Appellate Division's prior disposition; the Court of Appeals reversed that order and remitted for further proceedings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began from the settled principle that a defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. It explained that the motion court has broad discretion in fact-finding and that limited inquiry often suffices, with evidentiary hearings required only rarely (People v. Tinsley).

The Court recognized that while defense counsel should be given an opportunity to explain his performance (People v. Nelson), counsel may not take a position on the motion that is adverse to the defendant (People v. Kennedy). If counsel does take an adverse position, a conflict of interest arises and the court must assign new counsel to represent the defendant on the motion.

Applying these principles: in Mitchell the trial court properly addressed counsel's statements by assigning new counsel and, after hearing from new counsel, denied the motion — a disposition the Court found supported by the record. In Deliser the trial court erred by not assigning new counsel after defense counsel took a position contrary to the defendant's motion; that failure was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal and remand for the defendant to be heard with newly assigned counsel.

Holding and Implications

People v. Mitchell: Order affirmed.

People v. Deliser: Order reversed and case remitted to Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Direct consequences: Mitchell's denial of the plea-withdrawal motion and conviction/sentence were affirmed; Deliser is remanded so the defendant may be heard on his plea-withdrawal motion with newly assigned counsel. The opinion applies established principles regarding counsel's role on plea-withdrawal motions; no broader new precedent was announced beyond the application of those settled rules to these facts.

Show full summary ...

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert MITCHELL, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City (Rebekah J. Pazmiño of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled action. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Richard J. Ramsay, Joseph N. Ferdenzi and Peter D. Coddington of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Winston McIntosh of counsel), for appellant in the second above-entitled action.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Diane R. Eisner and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled action.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed in People v. Mitchell, and the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to Supreme Court in People v. Deliser for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

People v. Mitchell

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of murder in the second degree. Prior to sentencing, he filed a pro se motion to withdraw that plea, arguing, among other things, that his counsel coerced him into pleading guilty. When asked by the court if defense counsel had anything to say on defendant's behalf, counsel said: “[O]nly that I do not adopt the merits or factual assertions relative to this [motion].” Defense counsel expressed his concern to the court that if he did not respond to the motion, his silence might be deemed an acknowledgment that there was merit to the claims. In response to this concern, the court indicated it would assign new counsel. The court permitted defense counsel to be heard, and defense counsel took a position contrary to defendant's claim of coercion. After a proceeding with new defense counsel, the motion was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence (89 A.D.3d 628, 933 N.Y.S.2d 271 [1st Dept.2011] ).

People v. Deliser

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree in satisfaction of two indictments. He subsequently made a pro se motion to withdraw his plea in both cases, claiming that his pleas had been coerced by, among other things, defense counsel's alleged undue pressure on him. Asked for his response, defense counsel explained the actions he took on defendant's behalf. He concluded with the statement that, in his opinion, the People had “two strong cases against [defendant] and I think he made a knowing plea and I think it was in his best interest.”

After reading portions of the plea minutes, the court denied defendant's motion to withdraw the pleas. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgments of conviction and sentence (85 A.D.3d 1047, 925 N.Y.S.2d 882 [2d Dept.2011] ) concluding, among other things, that defendant's attorney did not take a position adverse to defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas.

A Judge of this Court granted defendants leave to appeal.

It is well settled that a defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel on his or her motion to withdraw a guilty plea ( see People v. Boyd, 22 N.Y.2d 707, 291 N.Y.S.2d 816, 238 N.E.2d 923 [1968];People v. Rozzell, 20 N.Y.2d 712, 282 N.Y.S.2d 775, 229 N.E.2d 452 [1967] ). The motion court has broad discretion in its fact-finding inquiry on the motion and often a “limited inter-rogation by the court will suffice” ( People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 [1974] ). “Only in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing” ( id.).

Thus, when 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 is 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 ( see People v. Nelson, 7 N.Y.3d 883, 826 N.Y.S.2d 593, 860 N.E.2d 56 [2006] ), but may not take a position on the motion that is adverse to the defendant ( see People v. Kennedy, 22 N.Y.2d 280, 282, 292 N.Y.S.2d 625, 239 N.E.2d 510 [1968] ). At that point, a conflict of interest arises, and the court must assign a new attorney to represent the defendant on the motion.

In Mitchell, when defense counsel stated on the record his opposition to the motion, the court providently exercised its discretion in assigning new counsel. The court's decision to deny defendant's motion after hearing from new defense counsel is supported by the record.

In Deliser, the court abused its discretion in not assigning new counsel once defense counsel took a position contrary to the one taken by his client on the motion. Thus defendant is entitled to be heard on his plea withdrawal motion with new assigned counsel. Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and RIVERA concur; Judge ABDUS–SALAAM taking no part.

In People v. Mitchell: Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and RIVERA concur; Judge ABDUS–SALAAM taking no part.

In People v. Deliser: Order reversed and case remitted to Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

People v. Mitchell