20 N.Y.3d 965 (2012)
r
When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea based on allegations of ineffective assistance or coercion by counsel, defense counsel may explain their performance but cannot take a position adverse to the defendant; doing so creates a conflict of interest requiring the appointment of new counsel.
r
Summary
r
These consolidated cases address the appropriate procedure when a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance or coercion by their attorney. The Court of Appeals held that while defense counsel may explain their actions regarding the plea when challenged, they cannot take a position adverse to the defendant’s motion. Doing so creates a conflict of interest, mandating the assignment of new counsel. In Mitchell, the court properly assigned new counsel when the original attorney opposed the motion. In Deliser, the court erred by not assigning new counsel when the attorney’s statements indicated a position contrary to the defendant’s.
r
Facts
r
People v. Mitchell: Mitchell pleaded guilty to murder and later moved to withdraw the plea, claiming coercion by his attorney. The attorney, when asked by the court, stated he did not adopt the factual assertions of the motion. The court then assigned new counsel, and after further proceedings, the motion was denied.
r
People v. Deliser: Deliser pleaded guilty to attempted murder and robbery, then moved to withdraw the plea, alleging coercion by his attorney. His attorney explained his actions and stated his belief that the plea was knowing and in Deliser’s best interest, given the strong cases against him. The court denied the motion.
r
Procedural History
r
People v. Mitchell: The trial court denied Mitchell’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction.
r
People v. Deliser: The trial court denied Deliser’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgments of conviction.
r
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal in both cases.
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether a conflict of interest arises when defense counsel, responding to a defendant’s motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on allegations of ineffective assistance or coercion, takes a position adverse to the defendant’s motion.
r
2. Whether, if such a conflict exists, the court is required to assign new counsel to represent the defendant on the motion to withdraw the plea.
r
Holding
r
1. Yes, because defense counsel may not take a position on the motion that is adverse to the defendant.
r
2. Yes, because when defense counsel takes a position adverse to their client on a motion to withdraw a plea, a conflict of interest arises, and the court must assign a new attorney.
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals relied on the established right to effective assistance of counsel during a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, citing People v. Boyd, 22 N.Y.2d 707 (1968). While the motion court has broad discretion in its inquiry and can often resolve the motion with limited interrogation, there are limits. “Only in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing” (People v. Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]). The court reasoned that when a motion challenges the actions of defense counsel, counsel should be allowed to explain their performance, as in People v. Nelson, 7 NY3d 883 (2006). However, counsel