Category: Recent Decisions

#SCOTUS Enlarges Review of Use of Incorrect Guidelines Range as #PlainError

Last week, in Molina-Martinez v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected a narrow interpretation of the plain error doctrine that would require a defendant sentenced under the wrong guideline range, but whose sentence would have been within the proper range, to show “additional evidence” beyond the plain error, that the error violated his substantial rights.

In Molina-Martinez, the defendant pled guilty to a crime that appeared to have a guidelines range of 77-96 months and he was sentenced to 77 months. On appeal, he argued for the first time that the  District Court miscalculated his Guidelines range, which should have been 70 to 87 months. The Fifth Circuit agreed but held that the defendant could not satisfy the plain error requirement (F.R.Cr.P. Rule 52(b) – an obvious error that affects “substantial rights.”).  It reasoned that a defendant whose sentence falls within what would have been the correct Guidelines range must, on appeal, produce “additional evidence” to establish beyond the mistake itself to show that the error affected his sentence.  Based on earlier Fifth Circuit caselaw, if a defendant’s ultimate sentence falls within what would have been the correct guidelines range, the defendant must identify “additional evidence” to make that showing.

Most Courts of Appeals have adopted a less demanding standard under which a district court’s mistaken use off the wrong guidelines rang can itself serve as evidence of an effect on substantial rights, without more. See, e.g., United States v. Sabillon-Umana, 772 F.3d 1328, 1333 (10th Cir. 2014) (application of an erroneous Guidelines range “‘runs the risk of affecting the ultimate sentence regardless of whether the court ultimately imposes a sentence within or outside’” that range) (emphasis added); United States v. Vargem, 747 F.3d 724, 728–29 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Story, 503 F.3d 436, 440 (6th Cir. 2007). These courts recognize that, in most cases, when a district court uses an incorrect range, there is a reasonable probability that the defendant’s sentence would have been different without the error. The Supreme Court agreed, and rejected the “additional evidence” requirement for plain error review.

Related Readings:

Recent #NYCA Decisions: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The New York Court of Appeals has been busy on the criminal procedure front. Last month it decided several cases, including three that addressed the issue of ineffective assistance of defense counsel. In one, the court held that counsel had been ineffective in failing to move to suppress a gun. In the second and third, the Court held that counsel had not been ineffective in 1) failing to move to reopen a suppression hearing when a detective changed his testimony at trial and 2) failing to object to inflammatory and improper gender based summation comments. The Court essentially found strategic justifications for counsel’s failures, but in split decisions.

In People v. Rashid Bilal, the defendant was charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree under N.Y. Penal Law § 265.03(3), based on allegations that he possessed a gun. Without any strategic or other reason, defense counsel failed to move to suppress the gun. The Court held that defense counsel’s failure amounted to ineffective assistance and remanded for a suppression hearing. This is a fairly clear-cut case.

In People v. Roy Gray, where the defendant was charged and convicted of murder in the second degree under N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25(1), the Court reached the opposite conclusion and held that it was not ineffective assistance for the defense lawyer to decline to move to reopen a suppression hearing. Judge Stein, joined by Judge Fahey, dissented.

In Gray, the defendant had moved to suppress three statements: the first, when he had told police he was going to take the blame for the murder because his brother had spent too long in jail, and a second, in writing, after additional Miranda warnings were given, inculpating himself. Both statements were suppressed because of the failure to give adequate Miranda warnings. The People appealed and the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the written statement was admissible because it was attenuated from the initial failure to give adequate Miranda warnings.

At trial, notwithstanding the suppression of the first statement, the defense stipulated that the first statement could be admitted on the theory that it cast doubt on the truthfulness of the written confession. Then, at trial, the detective who had taken the defendant’s statements changed his testimony in a way that raised the issue whether the second statement was a continuation of the first, unlawful interrogation. That is, he testified at trial  for the first time that after the first statement he continued to talk with the defendant for an hour during which time the defendant made a second statement that inculpated him – in substance the same as the subsequent written statement. Even though this testimony would have totally undermined the Appellate Division’s reasoning that the written statement was attenuated from the initial failure to give Miranda warnings, defense counsel did not move to reopen the suppression hearing; instead, he moved to have the detective’s testimony limited to what he had testified to at the hearing – that the first statement was limited to defendant’s intention to falsely confess. The Court recognized that this was a strategic decision, intended to undermine  the impact of the second and written confession, which counsel apparently believed would not be suppressed despite the change in testimony. The Court of Appeals held that this did not constitute ineffectiveness but was instead a reasonable strategic decision.

Judge Stein, in dissent, disagreed. As he saw it, the detective’s altered trial testimony undermined the basis for the Appellate Division’s decision that the second statement was attenuated. Given that the People had stipulated they did not have enough evidence to go forward without the confessions, and given that the People agreed that the written statement “was the culmination of the prior unwarned statements,” the failure to move to reopen the suppression hearing as to the second statement, and the decision to instead rely on the first statement to cast doubt on it – constituted ineffective assistance.

The dissent also disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that defense counsel had not been ineffective in failing to move to reopen because the issue was not a “winning” suppression argument. The dissent agreed that there could be no ineffectiveness where counsel failed to make a motion that has little or no chance of success, here, where “counsel fails to raise a close suppression issue,” that is so important to the proof of his client’s guilt, ineffectiveness is established. It was undisputed that the original Miranda warnings were deficient; there was now new evidence that the police had continued to question the defendant between the first and second statements and that there was “no pronounced break” between the two. Moreover, the decision was not a reasonable strategic one because defense counsel had “nothing to lose and everything to gain” by reopening the suppression hearing. All of the defendant’s statements would have been suppressed.

Finally, in People v. Urselina King, where the main issue argued on appeal concerned whether the court had improperly discharged potential jurors on hardship grounds, the Court affirmed the burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree convictions under N.Y. Penal Law § 140.30(3) and N.Y. Penal Law § 120.05(2) respectively. With respect to ineffective assistance, the Court held that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to “inflammatory gender-based” statements in the prosecutor’s summation. The effect of the statements was that the viciousness of the attack in question meant it could only have been done by a woman and, at the same time, that the victim, a different kind of woman, was more believable because she filled the “female victim” stereotype. Although finding that this double-barreled gender stereotyping was inflammatory and irrelevant, the majority concluded that the prosecutor’s remarks “were so over the top and ridiculous that defense counsel may very well have made a strategic decision not to object…out of a reasonable belief that the jury would be alienated by the prosecutor’s boorish comments.” The Court concluded that, on the whole, defense counsel rendered effective assistance.

Related Readings:

Recent New York Court of Appeals Decisions on Bruton

In two cases, People v. Assad Cedeno and People v. Keith Johnson, the NY Court of Appeals recently held that the defendants were deprived of their Sixth Amendment rights to be confronted with the witnesses against them by inadequately redacted statements of non-testifying co-defendants that were admitted at trial. Because the inadequately redacted statements remained facially incriminating, the convictions were reversed.

In People v. Cedeno, No. 24, 2016 NY Slip Op. 02281 (Mar. 29, 2016), which arose out of a gang fight, the lower court dealt with a statement by a co-defendant describing the defendant as “one of the Latin Kings wearing red and white trunks…[who] pulled out a knife and rushed the whole crowd and then ran over to the victim and started punching him with a small knife.” The statement was redacted to remove the description of the defendant’s clothing.

Judges Piggott and Garcia dissenting, the Court held that despite the redaction the statement remained facially incriminating and violated the defendant’s confrontation rights. The oral statement did not do so, because it contained a reference to a generic Latin King. However, the written version, which also went to the jury,  replaced the description with a  large blank space.  The Court concluded that since the defendant was one of the three co-defendants sitting at the table with the declarant, the statement powerfully implicated him. Presumably the Court was saying that the fact that it could have implicated one of the other defendant “latin kings” at the table did not change the result.

The dissenters would have held  that despite the blank spaces and clear signs of alteration the statement did not cause the jurors to realize that it specifically referred to the defendant.

In People v. Johnson, No. 25, 2016 NY Slip Op. 02282 (Mar. 29, 2016), the co-defendant had testified in the grand jury and gave a false exculpatory statement about what had occurred during the crime, which included a description of the defendant’s role in trying to rob an undercover officer in a buy and bust operation. The grand jury testimony was read into evidence. The Court rejected the People’s argument that the statement could not be inculpatory under Bruton because it offered “perfectly innocent explanation of the evening’s events.” The Court held that the co-defendant’s explicitly incriminating the defendant in possession of the robbery proceeds and in the initial stages of the drug transaction violated the defendant’s constitutional rights, even if the statement was ultimately exculpatory.

Related Readings:

New NYCA Decision on Attorney Disqualification

The New York Court of Appeals has unanimously reversed an appellate division decision and upheld the decision of a trial judge to relieve a defendant’s assigned counsel despite the defendant’s objections to having new counsel. The case arose when the defendant’s assigned counsel from New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) learned that another lawyer in his office was representing a man who had fled from the scene when his client was arrested for possession of a weapon found nearby. The attorney discovered the potential conflict when he sought to track down the other man to call him as a witness in the hope of casting doubt on who had possessed the gun. The attorney’s  supervisors at the NYCDS had prohibited him from looking for, calling the other man as a witness, or  cross-examining him if the prosecution called him to testify. The trial judge removed the attorney despite the client’s desire to keep him as counsel. The defendant was represented by someone else and convicted. He was sentenced to 20 years to life as a persistent violent felony offender.

The appellate division held that removal had been an abuse of discretion, but the appellate division was reversed. The Court of Appeals held that removal is appropriate where institutional defense organizations represent more than one defendant in the same criminal matter, particularly here, where the lawyer’s supervisors prohibited him from calling a prior client as a witness. It also held that the client had not effectively waived the conflict because, while he insisted on his right to retain his attorney of choice, he also continued to insist on calling the other defendant as a witness.

Related Readings:

An Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Divides the NYCA

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On November 23, 2015, the N.Y. Court of Appeals issued a decision in People v. Harris, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 08607 (Nov. 23, 2015) that split the Court 4-2 on application of the law of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC).

The facts of the case were that in 2002 a man surreptitiously entered a dwelling where a woman was sleeping. The man masturbated nearby the woman and fled when she awoke. The woman subsequently noticed that a pair of her earrings was missing. Based on DNA evidence processed several years later, the prosecution identified defendant as the man involved and indicted him on a misdemeanor count of petit larceny (for theft of the earrings) and a felony count of second-degree burglary (for unlawfully entering a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein).

There was just one problem with the prosecution’s case: the limitations period for the petit larceny count, even allowing for tolling, had expired more than a year before the indictment.

Nevertheless, the prosecution pursued the petit larceny charge at trial and used its underlying facts to support the burglary charge, the prosecution’s theory being that defendant had an intent to steal when he entered the dwelling. This decision would lead the Court of Appeals to comment on the need for “responsible charging practices.” But on appeal, focus would not be on the prosecutor’s decision but on the question: Why did defense counsel not seek dismissal of the time-barred larceny count?

At trial, defendant was convicted on both charges. On appeal, the defendant argued that his attorney was ineffective by failing to obtain dismissal of the larceny count. The issues were (1) whether counsel had a reasonable strategy in letting this charge go forward and (2) whether this singular error – if indeed it was such – could support an IAC claim.

As to the first issue, the majority stated that a finding of guilt on the larceny count would “as a practical matter have dictated a finding of guilt on the burglary count as well,” and so failure to obtain dismissal of the larceny count was “objectively incapable of enabling any compromise verdict.”

The dissenters noted, however, that even had the larceny count been dismissed, evidence relating to this uncharged crime would still have been admissible to support the intent element of the burglary charge – a possibility the majority did not deny. Accordingly, the dissenters concluded that counsel might have wanted to provide opportunity to convict only on this misdemeanor charge – an opportunity that would have been precluded were the charge dismissed.

As to the second issue, the Court’s precedents state the rule that an IAC claim requires assessment of counsel’s overall representation. So the question was whether a single error in otherwise unquestioned performance could support the IAC claim in Harris. The Court relied on its earlier decision in People v. Turner, 840 N.E.2d 123 (N.Y. 2005), in which it held that a singular error to obtain omission of a time-barred charge was prejudicial in a case where the time-barred count was the only one on which the jury convicted. Writing for the Court, Judge Robert Smith noted that Turner “may be the first [case] this Court has encountered” in which a singular error required a finding of constitutionally deficient performance.

The Harris majority understood Turner to create a “freestanding” exception to the overall assessment rule for cases where counsel’s only error was omission to seek dismissal of a time-barred charge. The dissenters interpreted Turner as instead upholding the overall assessment rule, while allowing that a single questionable decision of whatever sort can sustain an IAC claim only if that decision discloses ineffectiveness in overall performance.

This disagreement also implicated the issue of remedy. The majority interpreted Turner broadly to apply wherever unreasonable omission to obtain dismissal of a time-barred charge results in conviction on that charge. Accordingly, in Harris the majority granted only partial relief, reversing the larceny conviction but not the burglary conviction. The dissenters found this partial relief, grounded in “charge by charge analysis,” unprecedented. Given their understanding that focus must be on counsel’s overall performance, the dissenters stated that the proper remedy, assuming IAC is found, would have to have been comprehensive.

Related Readings: