People v. Gonzalez, 80 N.Y.2d 146 (1992)
Appellate courts have broad discretion in controlling their calendars, including the decision to grant or deny leave to file supplemental briefs, especially when the issues raised in the proposed supplemental brief could have been discovered and included in the original brief.
Summary
The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Appellate Division erred in denying him leave to file a supplemental brief raising a Batson issue. He claimed deprivation of due process and equal protection. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the denial of leave to file the supplemental brief was within the Appellate Division’s discretion. The court reasoned that the Batson issue could have been discovered and included in the original brief. The court also found no merit in the defendant’s remaining contentions, including the Batson claim itself and a claim regarding his right to testify.
Facts
Defendant was convicted after a trial. On appeal, his counsel initially failed to include a Batson issue in the filed brief. This issue was preserved in the voir dire minutes but, as a matter of practice, voir dire minutes were not included as part of trial transcripts. After People v. Antommarchi, counsel sought permission to file supplemental briefs to raise possible Antommarchi issues. However, after People v. Mitchell, the Appellate Division denied defendant leave to file a supplemental brief to include the Batson issue, reviewing and affirming his conviction based on the originally filed brief.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at trial. He appealed to the Appellate Division, which initially considered his appeal without the Batson issue. The Appellate Division denied defendant leave to file a supplemental brief to raise the Batson issue. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division erred in denying the defendant leave to file a supplemental brief to raise a Batson issue, thereby depriving him of due process and equal protection?
Holding
No, because the Appellate Division acted within the proper exercise of its discretion to control its own calendar, and the Batson issue could have been discovered and included in the defendant’s original brief.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division has the discretion to control its own calendar, including decisions regarding supplemental briefs. The court emphasized that the Batson issue was discoverable and could have been included in the original brief. The court rejected the argument that the defendant’s indigence affected his access to a complete transcript, as the minutes were transcribed upon his request. The court stated, “While defendant suggests a deprivation of due process and denial of equal protection, we conclude there was no error here, and that the Appellate Division acted within the proper exercise of its discretion to control its own calendar. The Batson issue could have been discovered and included in defendant’s original brief.” Furthermore, the court addressed the Batson claim itself, stating that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case, even assuming ethnic groups are cognizable under Batson. The court also dismissed the defendant’s claim that he was deprived of his right to testify because he did not personally waive that right on the record.