People v. Taveras, 10 N.Y.3d 226 (2008)
The Appellate Division has discretion to dismiss a defendant’s appeal, even after the defendant is returned to custody, considering factors such as prejudice to the People, the length of the absence, and the merits of the appeal.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the Appellate Division properly dismissed the appeals of two defendants, Taveras and Jones, who had absconded before or during their trials and were later apprehended. The Court held that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, which allows dismissal of appeals for defendants who are at large, did not automatically apply since both defendants were back in custody. However, the Appellate Division retained broad discretion under CPL 470.60(1) to dismiss the appeals, considering factors such as prejudice to the prosecution caused by the delay, the length of the defendant’s absence, and the merits of the appeal. Because the People established prejudice in both cases due to the significant passage of time, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of both appeals.
Facts
Jose Martin Taveras was charged with murder and other offenses in 1984 but failed to appear for his trial in 1986. He was later arrested on federal drug charges and again absconded before his state trial and federal sentencing. He was apprehended eight years later in Florida. Anthony Jones was charged with burglary, robbery, and assault in 1987. He absconded during jury selection, despite being warned that he would be tried and sentenced in absentia. He was arrested on a bench warrant 17 years later.
Procedural History
In Taveras, defense counsel filed a timely notice of appeal after Taveras was convicted in absentia. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal after Taveras was apprehended and attempted to pursue it. In Jones, a timely notice of appeal was filed after Jones’s conviction in absentia. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal after Jones was apprehended and sought poor person relief to pursue the appeal. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal in both cases. The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals because they presented similar issues.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion by dismissing the defendants’ appeals after they were apprehended and returned to custody, considering the length of their absence and the potential prejudice to the People.
Holding
No, because the Appellate Division has broad discretion under CPL 470.60(1) to dismiss appeals, even after a defendant is returned to custody, and the People demonstrated sufficient prejudice in both cases due to the defendants’ extended absences.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals clarified that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine did not automatically bar the appeals because the defendants were no longer fugitives when the motions to dismiss were brought. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Division has broad discretion to determine whether to permit such appeals to proceed (CPL 470.60[1]). In exercising its discretion, the Appellate Division may consider several factors including whether the defendant’s flight caused “a significant interference with the operation of [the] appellate process” (quoting Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 250 [1993]); whether the defendant’s absence so delayed the administration of justice that the People would be prejudiced in locating witnesses and presenting evidence at any retrial; the length of the defendant’s absence; whether the defendant voluntarily surrendered; the importance and novelty of the issues raised on appeal; and the merits of the appeal. The Court found no abuse of discretion, as the People established that they would suffer prejudice due to the extended absences, including the difficulty of locating witnesses and presenting evidence should a retrial be necessary. In Taveras, the People established that they would be prejudiced due to Taveras’ nine-year absence, including the difficulty of locating a key witness to the crimes 22 years after the fact, rendering it almost impossible to re-try the case should Taveras obtain an appellate ruling in his favor. Similarly, in Jones, the People established that they would suffer prejudice due to Jones’ 18-year absence.