People v. Welcome, 43 N.Y.2d 812 (1977)

In criminal cases not involving the death penalty, an appeal to the Court of Appeals requires a certificate granting leave to appeal, and the denial of such leave by a designated judge of the Court of Appeals is final.

Summary

The defendants Welcome and Holmes appealed from orders affirming their convictions. Additionally, Welcome appealed the denial of a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The Court of Appeals addressed the finality of orders denying motions for new trials and, more significantly, the procedural requirements for appealing criminal convictions to the Court of Appeals. The court held that the denial of the motion for a new trial was within the trial judge’s discretion. More importantly, the court dismissed the appeals from the convictions because the defendants failed to obtain a certificate granting leave to appeal, a prerequisite for appealing criminal cases to the Court of Appeals.

Facts

Defendants Welcome and Holmes were convicted of crimes, and their convictions were affirmed by the Appellate Division. After their convictions were affirmed, Welcome filed a motion for a new trial based on what was claimed to be new evidence, which was denied. They sought to appeal these decisions to the New York Court of Appeals.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted Welcome and Holmes. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions and denied Welcome’s motion for a new trial. Welcome and Holmes then attempted to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. In Welcome’s case, the application for reconsideration was made nearly two years after denial and three months after the judge who originally denied leave had left the court. In Holmes’ case, the application for reconsideration was made 14 months after denial and nearly a year after the judge originally designated had left the court.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying Welcome’s motion for a new trial without a hearing.
2. Whether, in a criminal case not involving the death penalty, an appeal can be taken to the Court of Appeals as a matter of right without a certificate granting leave to appeal.
3. Whether an application for reconsideration of a denial for leave to appeal can be granted after an unreasonable amount of time has passed and the judge who originally denied leave has left the court.

Holding

1. No, because the trial judge did not abuse his discretion given the nature of the trial proof and the circumstances surrounding the alleged recantation of the witness.
2. No, because, absent the death penalty, a certificate granting leave to appeal is required under the New York Constitution and Criminal Procedure Law (CPL).
3. No, because such applications must be considered in a timely fashion, and allowing reconsideration after such an extended period would undermine the finality of the initial determination.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding the motion for a new trial, the Court found no abuse of discretion by the trial judge, emphasizing that such motions are addressed to the trial court’s discretion. The Court considered the trial proof, the witness’s testimony, and the circumstances of the recantation.

Regarding the appeals from the convictions, the Court emphasized the procedural requirements for appealing criminal cases to the Court of Appeals. Citing Article VI, Section 3 of the New York Constitution and CPL 460.10(5)(a), the Court stated that an appeal as of right exists only in death penalty cases. In all other criminal cases, CPL 460.20 dictates that the appellant must apply for a certificate granting leave to appeal. CPL 460.20(3)(b) states that the Chief Judge designates a judge of the court to determine the application, and that designated Judge’s decision is final. The Court cited People v Kahn, 291 NY 663; People v McCarthy, 250 NY 358, 362; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, p 718, 70 to support the principle of finality.

The Court also noted that the applications for reconsideration in both cases were made long after the original denials and after the judges who originally denied leave had left the court. This further supported the dismissal of the appeals.