People v. Corley, 67 N.Y.2d 105 (1986)

Dismissal of an appeal for failure to prosecute acts as an adjudication on the merits of all claims that could have been litigated, and a defendant forfeits the right to be present at sentencing by willfully absconding to frustrate scheduled proceedings.

Summary

Defendant Corley was convicted of robbery, but the trial court set aside the verdict. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the conviction. Corley was informed of the reinstatement and ordered to appear for further proceedings. He appeared but left during a break and did not return. A bench warrant was issued, and he was later sentenced in absentia. He appealed, but his appeal was initially dismissed when he absconded. The Court of Appeals held that dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute acted as an adjudication on the merits. It further held that Corley forfeited his right to be present at sentencing by willfully absconding, justifying sentencing in absentia.

Facts

Dwight Corley was convicted of second-degree robbery. The trial court set aside the jury verdict, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision and reinstated the guilty verdict. Corley was notified to appear in court following the reinstatement of his conviction. He appeared with counsel but left during a recess and failed to return. He was a predicate felon with a prior bench warrant.

Procedural History

The trial court initially set aside the jury verdict. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision and reinstated the guilty verdict. Corley was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but that appeal was dismissed when he absconded. The Court of Appeals later reinstated his appeal, but it was again dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Appellate Division affirmed the sentence, and Corley appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the dismissal of defendant’s prior appeal for failure to prosecute bars his subsequent appeal of the same issue.

2. Whether defendant was properly sentenced in absentia where, after reinstatement of his conviction on appeal, he willfully absconded on the day scheduled for his appearance before the Trial Judge.

Holding

1. Yes, because dismissal of an appeal for failure to prosecute acts as an adjudication on the merits of all claims that could have been litigated had the appeal been timely argued or submitted.

2. Yes, because a defendant forfeits any right to be present at sentencing by absconding to frustrate scheduled proceedings before the Trial Judge in connection with sentencing.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute acts as an adjudication on the merits. The court stated, “Once having dismissed an appeal for failure to prosecute, we foster disrespect and indifference toward our rules and orders, encourage laxity and extend the already lengthy litigation process if we simply ignore our own order and proceed to a consideration of the issue tendered by the dismissed appeal.”

Regarding the sentencing in absentia, the court distinguished this case from People v. Stroman, where the defendant was nearby but not brought back into the courtroom. Here, Corley was aware of the consequences of his actions. He was present initially and then deliberately absented himself to frustrate the sentencing process. The court noted the difference between waiver (knowing, voluntary, and intelligent decision) and forfeiture (occurs by operation of law, based on objective facts). The court quoted People v. Sanchez, stating that a defendant can lose the right to be present as a matter of public policy when the evidence unambiguously indicates “a defiance of the processes of law sufficient to effect a forfeiture”.