People v. Bell

• Decision Date: 13 December 1979
• Citation: 401 N.E.2d 180,425 N.Y.S.2d 57,48 N.Y.2d 933
• Parties: , 401 N.E.2d 180 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William BELL, Jr., and Thewarthur Pritchett, Appellants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 57

425 N.Y.S.2d 57

48 N.Y.2d 933, 401 N.E.2d 180

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William BELL, Jr., and Thewarthur Pritchett, Appellants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 13, 1979.

Edward J. Nowak, Public Defender, for William Bell, Jr., appellant

Leslie A. Bradshaw, Rochester, for Thewarthur Pritchett, appellant.

Lawrence T. Kurlander, Dist. Atty. (Stephen M. Brent, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The orders of the Appellate Division affirming the convictions of defendants Bell and Pritchett should be reversed and the cases remitted for new trial.

There can be no question on review of the record that defendant Pritchett did not have effective assistance of counsel, within the meaning of our holdings in People v. Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852, 410 N.Y.S.2d 287, 382 N.E.2d 1149 and People v. Droz, 39 N.Y.2d 457, 384 N.Y.S.2d 404, 348 N.E.2d 880 (see, also, People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606, 419 N.Y.S.2d 913, 393 N.E.2d 987). His retained attorney not only failed to request any pretrial hearings, conduct any voir dire of jurors or make any opening statement, but also asserted as a defense in this narcotics prosecution "trafficking" without ever coherently indicating what the defense consisted of, by cross-examination of prosecution witnesses elicited incriminating hearsay evidence against his client, joined in a motion by codefendant Bell made at the end of the People's case for dismissal of the charges against Bell on the ground that his client, Pritchett, was the only one involved, but nevertheless sought to establish an agency defense, as to which he requested an instruction to the jury, with Bell as the principal, put Pritchett on the stand and, apparently in relation to the trafficking defense elicited a confession from Pritchett as to his part in the selling of the drugs, made a largely irrelevant closing argument, and to cap it off made no sentencing statement on behalf of Pritchett at all. Such a litany establishes beyond peradventure that what is here involved is not a misguided though reasonably plausible strategy decision but clear ineffectiveness of counsel; why else proffer an unrecognizable defense or join in a motion that only his own client was involved.

In the face of the devastation wrought by Pritchett's "defense" defendant Bell sought, but was denied, a charge that Pritchett was an accomplice as a matter of law and that, therefore, Bell could not be...