New York Law Review

Tag: Criminal Appeal

  • People v. Ventura, 17 N.Y.3d 675 (2011): Right to Appeal for Involuntarily Deported Defendants

    17 N.Y.3d 675 (2011)

    An involuntarily deported defendant retains the right to have their direct criminal appeal heard by an intermediate appellate court, and it is an abuse of discretion for the appellate court to dismiss the appeal solely based on the defendant’s deportation.

    Summary

    Carlos Ventura and Damian Gardner were convicted of crimes and filed appeals. While their appeals were pending, both were involuntarily deported by federal immigration authorities. The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion by dismissing their appeals because the defendants were no longer present in the country. The Court of Appeals held that it was an abuse of discretion, emphasizing the importance of intermediate appellate review and the lack of voluntary evasion of justice by the defendants.

    Facts

    Carlos Ventura was convicted of criminal possession of stolen property and other offenses. He filed a timely notice of appeal. Ventura, a legal permanent resident from the Dominican Republic, was paroled to ICE and deported before his appeal was heard. The Appellate Division granted the People’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

    Damian Gardner was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance and filed a timely notice of appeal. Gardner was deported to Jamaica before his appeal was decided. The People’s motion to dismiss Gardner’s appeal was also granted by the Appellate Division.

    Procedural History

    Both Ventura and Gardner were convicted in trial courts. They both filed appeals to the Appellate Division. In both cases, the Appellate Division granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the appeals due to the defendants’ deportation. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal in both cases to review the dismissals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion by dismissing the direct criminal appeals of defendants who were involuntarily deported while their appeals were pending.

    Holding

    Yes, because criminal defendants have a fundamental right to intermediate appellate review, and dismissing an appeal solely due to involuntary deportation undermines this right, especially when the defendant’s absence is not a voluntary evasion of justice.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that CPL 450.10 provides a criminal defendant a right to appeal to an intermediate appellate court. Dismissal of appeals based on the defendant’s inability to obey the mandate of the court is usually reserved for cases where the defendant voluntarily absconds, thereby evading justice. In this case, the defendants’ deportations were involuntary, distinguishing them from cases where appeals are dismissed due to a defendant’s deliberate evasion. The Court emphasized the importance of intermediate appellate review in New York, highlighting the Appellate Division’s unique fact-finding powers and ability to review unpreserved issues. The court noted that while CPL 470.60(1) grants appellate courts discretion to dismiss appeals, this discretion cannot override a defendant’s fundamental right to appellate review. The Court also noted that the defendants continued to prosecute their appeals through counsel. The Court distinguished prior cases, such as People v. Del Rio, because those cases involved appeals dismissed by the Court of Appeals after intermediate appellate review had already occurred. Judge Read dissented, arguing that the Appellate Division has discretion to dismiss appeals, and that the majority’s rule strips the court of this discretion when the defendant is an involuntarily deported noncitizen. The dissent argued that unless the conviction caused the deportation or prevents reentry, the Appellate Division should have the discretion to dismiss the appeal.

  • People v. Casiano, 67 N.Y.2d 906 (1986): Right to Counsel on Appeal After Anders Brief Filed

    People v. Casiano, 67 N.Y.2d 906 (1986)

    When an appellate court identifies nonfrivolous issues in a criminal defendant’s appeal after assigned counsel has filed an Anders brief, the court must assign new counsel to provide effective assistance, as neither the court’s review nor a pro se brief can substitute for the advocacy of counsel.

    Summary

    Casiano was convicted in trial court, and his assigned appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, claiming the appeal was frivolous, without consulting Casiano or analyzing the record. The Appellate Division, reviewing Casiano’s pro se brief, identified appealable issues but affirmed the conviction without assigning new counsel. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Casiano was deprived of effective assistance of counsel on appeal. The court reasoned that once the Appellate Division found nonfrivolous issues, it was obligated to assign new counsel to provide single-minded advocacy, something neither the court’s review nor Casiano’s pro se brief could provide.

    Facts

    Casiano was convicted after trial. His assigned appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting the appeal lacked merit. Counsel did not consult with Casiano before filing the brief. Counsel did not conduct a thorough analysis of the trial court record to identify potential issues for appeal.

    Procedural History

    The assigned counsel filed an Anders brief with the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division reviewed Casiano’s pro se brief. The Appellate Division found appealable issues in the record. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction without assigning new counsel. Casiano appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Appellate Division’s failure to assign new counsel to a criminal defendant after discovering nonfrivolous issues in his appeal, following the filing of an Anders brief by assigned counsel, deprived the defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal.

    Holding

    Yes, because once the Appellate Division identified nonfrivolous issues, the defendant was entitled to the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel, which neither the court’s review nor a pro se brief could provide.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on People v. Gonzalez, which established that neither a review of the record by the Appellate Division nor a pro se brief can substitute for the advocacy of appellate counsel. The Court emphasized the importance of effective assistance of counsel at all stages of a criminal proceeding, including the first appeal as of right. The court also cited Evitts v. Lucey and Anders v. California, underscoring the constitutional right to effective representation on appeal. The Court criticized the District Attorney for failing to address or distinguish these controlling precedents. The court stated, “neither a review of the record by the Appellate Division nor a pro se brief can substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel.” The court’s decision highlights the crucial role of appointed counsel in identifying and presenting potentially meritorious arguments on appeal, even after initial counsel deems the appeal frivolous. This ensures that indigent defendants receive a fair and meaningful review of their convictions.