People v. Del Rio, 16 N.Y.2d 163 (1965)
A defendant who accepts a commutation of sentence and parole, conditioned on remaining outside the jurisdiction, forfeits the right to appeal the underlying conviction.
Summary
Del Rio was convicted of murder. While his appeal was pending, he accepted a commutation of his sentence and parole, conditioned on his deportation to Cuba and agreement never to return to the United States. The New York Court of Appeals held that by accepting these terms, Del Rio abandoned his right to appeal. The court reasoned that because Del Rio was no longer within the jurisdiction and had agreed to remain outside it, his appeal would be futile, as he would not be available for a new trial if one were ordered. This decision underscores the principle that a defendant cannot simultaneously seek to overturn a conviction while accepting the benefits of a conditional release that requires their absence from the jurisdiction.
Facts
Francisco Molina del Rio was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.
While his appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was pending, the U.S. Department of Justice sought his release to secure the release of American citizens imprisoned in Cuba.
The Governor of New York commuted Del Rio’s sentence, contingent on his voluntary acceptance of the terms, which included deportation to Cuba and a promise never to return to the United States.
Del Rio signed a parole release agreement, accepting these conditions, and was deported to Cuba.
Despite being in Cuba, Del Rio later requested that his appeal be pursued.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted Del Rio of murder in the second degree.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals initially dismissed Del Rio’s appeal as moot after he was deported.
The Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal based on mistaken information that Del Rio had not consented to the commutation and deportation.
Upon learning that Del Rio had voluntarily accepted the commutation and deportation terms, the Court of Appeals reconsidered the appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant who accepts a commutation of sentence and parole, conditioned on remaining outside the jurisdiction, retains the right to appeal the underlying conviction.
Holding
No, because by accepting the commutation and parole with the condition that he remain outside the United States, Del Rio waived and abandoned his right to appeal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the principle established in People v. Genet, which held that court proceedings on behalf of a person charged with a felony cannot be taken unless the defendant is in actual or constructive custody.
The court acknowledged differing views on whether an appeal should be dismissed or suspended when a defendant absconds, but noted a consensus that an absconding defendant-appellant may not have the appeal heard.
The court reasoned that hearing the appeal would be futile because if a new trial were ordered, Del Rio would not be present to answer further.
The court distinguished this case from Eighmy v. People, which held that acceptance of a pardon does not deprive a defendant of the right to appeal, because Del Rio’s case involved a condition of exile from the state, making his situation analogous to escaping or absconding.
The court stated that Del Rio, “in consideration of the commutation of his long sentence and of his release from prison solemnly agreed that he would go at once to Cuba and never again enter the United States. He has ever since been in Cuba and from Cuba he has written his lawyer that he desires the appeal to be pressed. The difficulty with the latter request is that, in reason and on the precedents, he must be held to have abandoned the appeal and deliberately to have waived and foregone his right to have the appeal heard and decided.”