People v. Garcia, 93 N.Y.2d 42 (1999)
A defendant does not have the right to counsel at court appearances related to participation in a Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) program when those appearances are primarily administrative and do not involve accusatory proceedings or factual determinations affecting the defendant’s liberty.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a defendant’s right to counsel was not violated when he appeared in court without counsel for TASC-related proceedings. Garcia pleaded guilty to a drug offense with the understanding that he would enter a TASC program. He was later ejected from the program for a rules violation. At a subsequent court appearance to discuss his status, the TASC representative suggested the court proceed to sentencing. The court agreed and discharged TASC from the case. The Court of Appeals reasoned that this appearance was not a “critical stage” requiring counsel because it was an administrative matter, not an accusatory proceeding involving new factual or legal determinations.
Facts
In 1994, Garcia sold heroin and crack cocaine to an undercover officer and was indicted. In 1995, he pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance, the top count of the indictment, with the understanding that he would be admitted into a TASC program. The court warned him that if he failed to complete the program or committed another crime, he could face a sentence of 4½ to 9 years. After participating in the program for 18 months, Garcia was ejected for violating rules and remained at large for three months. He was brought back to court on a bench warrant.
Procedural History
After being ejected from the TASC program, Garcia appeared in court several times without counsel. At one such appearance, the TASC representative suggested that the court sentence Garcia. The court discharged TASC from the case and scheduled sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, with counsel present, Garcia was sentenced to 4½ to 9 years. The Appellate Division affirmed his conviction, and Garcia appealed, arguing a violation of his right to counsel.
Issue(s)
Whether the February 20th court appearance, where the court determined Garcia would be sentenced to jail after his ejection from the TASC program, constituted a “critical stage” of the proceedings requiring the presence of counsel.
Holding
No, because the February 20th appearance was an administrative proceeding and not an accusatory one requiring factual or legal determinations affecting Garcia’s liberty.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished TASC appearances from parole or probation revocation hearings, where the right to counsel is required because the outcome (liberty or imprisonment) depends on factual determinations of misconduct. In revocation hearings, counsel is needed to marshal facts, introduce mitigating evidence, and assist the defendant. In contrast, Garcia’s February 20th appearance was not accusatory. The court emphasized that it was undisputed that Garcia had violated the TASC program rules. The court stated that “No factual or legal questions were at issue, and defendant’s views were not relevant to TASC’s decision to readmit him or its ability — given the circumstances created by defendant’s conduct — to find a new program for him.” The court’s decision was driven by administrative concerns and TASC’s assessment, not by any new allegations or factual disputes requiring legal representation. The Court concluded that the presence of counsel was not required to protect Garcia’s due process rights in this context. The court noted, “At the core of that right, which we have long recognized as inviolable and fundamental to our form of justice, is the recognition that defendants, confronted with both the intricacies of the criminal law and the experienced advocacy of the public prosecutor, require the ‘guiding hand of counsel’ to aid their defense.”