People v. Rosario, 28 N.Y.3d 599 (2017)
Defense counsel has a constitutional duty to consult with a client about an appeal when a rational defendant would want to appeal or the defendant has demonstrated an interest in appealing.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals considered the extent of defense counsel’s duty to consult with a client regarding the right to appeal following a guilty plea and sentencing. The court affirmed the lower court’s ruling in one case, where the record showed the defendant had been properly advised and waived his right to appeal. However, the court considered the record in a second case less clear, and a dissenting opinion argued that where the record failed to show counsel consulted with the defendant regarding their right to appeal, a hearing should be granted. This case reinforces the importance of detailed communication between defense counsel and their clients regarding their appellate rights and is an important reminder of the duty of counsel to ensure their clients understand their right to appeal.
Facts
The case involved two separate defendants, Rosario and Llibre, who had both pleaded guilty and been sentenced. Following the sentencing, each defendant filed a motion challenging the effectiveness of their counsel, claiming that they were not properly informed about their right to appeal. In People v. Llibre, the record contained documentation of an oral and written waiver, affirming that Llibre had discussed the right to appeal with defense counsel. In People v. Rosario, however, the record was less clear. It didn’t demonstrate that counsel had consulted with Rosario about appealing.
Procedural History
Both cases were initially heard in lower courts. The motions to challenge the effectiveness of counsel were denied at the trial court level. Subsequently, both cases were appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision regarding People v. Llibre, while considering the merits of the appeal in People v. Rosario.
Issue(s)
1. Whether defense counsel has a duty to consult with a defendant about the right to appeal.
2. Whether the record in People v. Llibre conclusively demonstrated that the defendant was advised of their right to appeal and waived it.
3. Whether the record in People v. Rosario was sufficient to demonstrate that defense counsel had adequately consulted with the defendant regarding their right to appeal.
Holding
1. Yes, defense counsel has a duty to consult with a defendant about the right to appeal when it’s reasonable to believe that the defendant would want to appeal.
2. Yes, the record in People v. Llibre conclusively demonstrated that the defendant was advised of their right to appeal and waived it.
3. No, the record in People v. Rosario was insufficient to show that defense counsel had adequately consulted with the defendant regarding their right to appeal.
Court’s Reasoning
The court referenced the U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Flores-Ortega, which established that “counsel has a constitutionally imposed duty to consult with the defendant about an appeal when there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal (for example, because there are nonfrivolous grounds for appeal), or (2) that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing.” The court also highlighted that to “consult” means “advising the defendant about the advantages and disadvantages of taking an appeal, and making a reasonable effort to discover the defendant’s wishes.” In People v. Llibre, the record included direct evidence of the defendant having been informed of his right to appeal and expressly waiving this right. In People v. Rosario, the record was devoid of any evidence of consultation between the defendant and defense counsel on the possibility of appeal.
The dissenting opinion emphasized the need for defense counsel to ensure a defendant’s understanding of their appellate rights, especially in cases of potential confusion. It also noted the absence of an affidavit from defense counsel in Rosario, which could have provided clarity on whether consultation had occurred.
Practical Implications
This case underscores the importance of clear and documented communication between defense counsel and their clients regarding the right to appeal. It reinforces the