People v. Salicco, 29 N.Y.2d 624 (1971)
A criminal defendant is entitled to a hearing on a motion for coram nobis when uncontradicted factual allegations, supported by exhibits, suggest a conflict of interest due to the public defender’s prior representation of a witness connected to the crime.
Summary
Salicco sought coram nobis relief, claiming a conflict of interest because the public defender who represented him had previously represented the corporation employing the victim of the burglary. The New York Court of Appeals held that the defendant was entitled to a hearing on his coram nobis application. The Court found that the public defender’s prior representation of the victim’s employer, coupled with the employer’s role as a complaining witness, created a potential conflict. The court emphasized that even the appearance of impropriety necessitates a careful examination, especially when the trial judge and public defender previously recognized the conflict. The matter was remitted for a hearing before a different judge, with a complete trial transcript, to fully explore the conflict of interest allegations.
Facts
Salicco was convicted of burglary. Prior to his trial, the Trial Judge and the Public Defender seemed to recognize a conflict of interest. After the conviction, Salicco filed a coram nobis application alleging a conflict of interest because the public defender, Mr. Ryan, had previously represented the corporation that employed Mr. Vensel, the victim of the burglary. Mr. Vensel was also the complaining witness regarding the burglary of his home and the armed robbery of his son, during which the keys to the getaway car were stolen. Salicco asserted the corporation owned the stolen vehicle and was also a victim.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in County Court. He then filed a coram nobis application, which was denied without a hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding nothing in the record to indicate the Public Defender participated in the trial in any way. The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and remitted the matter to the County Court for a hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant was entitled to a hearing on his coram nobis application alleging a conflict of interest, based on the public defender’s prior representation of a witness connected to the crime.
Holding
Yes, because the uncontradicted factual allegations of the petition, buttressed by exhibits, required a hearing to determine if a conflict of interest existed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals determined that the lower court erred in denying Salicco’s coram nobis application without a hearing. The Court emphasized that Salicco’s allegations, supported by letters from the trial judge and public defender, raised serious concerns about a potential conflict of interest. The court noted that while the public defender did not directly represent the burglary victim, he represented the corporation employing the victim. The court reasoned that the victim, as the corporation’s agent and complaining witness, could not be considered a “dispassionate, disinterested observer.” The Court found persuasive the letters from both the Trial Judge and the Public Defender recognizing a conflict of interest before the trial, stating, “certainly the judgment of the ethical lawyer concerned is often the best test of that issue.” The court remitted the case for a hearing, suggesting it be conducted by a different judge with access to the complete trial transcript. The Court emphasized the need to ensure the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings, especially where a potential conflict of interest could have compromised the defendant’s representation.