People v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 03 November 1983
• Citation: 60 N.Y.2d 848,470 N.Y.S.2d 136,458 N.E.2d 377
• Parties: , 458 N.E.2d 377 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roger JACKSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 136

470 N.Y.S.2d 136

60 N.Y.2d 848, 458 N.E.2d 377

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roger JACKSON, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 3, 1983.

James M. Dungan and Gerald T. Barth, Syracuse, for appellant.

Richard A. Hennessy, Jr., Dist. Atty. (John A. Cirando and Michael P. Marmor, Asst. Dist. Attys., of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division 94 A.D.2d 983, 464 N.Y.S.2d 614 should be affirmed.

A distinction must be drawn between conflict of interest cases involving representation of several defendants by one attorney and the potential for conflict resulting when a defendant's attorney accepts the offer of a position with the prosecutor's office. In the former situation the consequences will not be readily apparent to the average defendant and require careful probing by the Trial Judge of each defendant's "awareness of the potential risks involved in that course and [that each] has knowingly chosen it" (People v. Macerola, 47 N.Y.2d 257, 263, 417 N.Y.S.2d 908, 391 N.E.2d 990; see People v. Gomberg, 38 N.Y.2d 307, 312-314, 379 N.Y.S.2d 769, 342 N.E.2d 550). In some, though not all, situations involving conflict of the latter type, the risks involved may be clear even to a layman.

When, as in People v. Shinkle, 51 N.Y.2d 417, 421, 434 N.Y.S.2d 918, 415 N.E.2d 909 defendant may believe that his former attorney, who joined the prosecutor's staff prior to defendant's trial, is championing the People's cause against him, there is an impermissible conflict even though the prosecutor and the former attorney have in fact taken pains to assure otherwise. Where, as here, however, defendant's attorney joins the prosecutor's staff after entry of defendant's plea of guilty, the fact that he will do so has been revealed to defendant prior to plea, the plea taken is to the lower of two crimes charged and in satisfaction of all related charges against defendant and includes a recommendation by the prosecutor that defendant be sentenced to time served, there is no "significant possibility" of an actual conflict (see People v. Monroe, 54 N.Y.2d 35, 37, 444 N.Y.S.2d 578, 429 N.E.2d 97; People v. Baffi, 49 N.Y.2d 820, 822, 427 N.Y.S.2d 615, 404 N.E.2d 737). Under such circumstances the Trial Judge need not probe as deeply as would be required in a joint representation case to assure that defendant's decision to proceed is an informed decision (cf. People v. Monroe, 54 N.Y.2d 35, 38-39, 444 N.Y.S.2d 578, 429 N.E.2d 97; supra; People v. Gomberg, 38 N.Y.2d 307, 313, 379 N.Y.S.2d 769, 342 N.E.2d 550, supra ).

The record reveals that the Trial Judge assured himself that defendant was aware of his attorney's...