People v. Morisseau
| Decision Date | 11 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | 18-0280 |
| Citation | 110 N.Y.S.3d 224 (Table),60 Misc.3d 1216 (A) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Charlene MORISSEAU, Defendant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Charlene Morisseau, Westchester County District Attorney, Mount Vernon branch, Defendant Pro Se—Docket # 18-0282.
Angelo MacDonald, Esq., 200 West 60th Street, Suite 3C, New York, NY 10023, Attorney for Defendant-Dockets # 18-0280, 18-0281.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Docket # 18-0282
On July 30, 2015, defendant was charged by misdemeanor complaint with Obstruction of Governmental Administration (P.L. 195.05) and Disorderly Conduct (P.L. 240.20 (4) ). Defendant was arraigned on those charged on July 31, 2015. By Decision and Order dated November 24, 2015, White Plains City Court (J. Press) granted defendant's motion to dismiss the Disorderly Conduct charge for facial insufficiency. The court, however, denied defendant's application to dismiss the charge of Obstruction of Governmental Administration in the Second Degree upon a finding that the accusatory instrument was facially sufficient with respect to that charge. On October 4, 2017, the People filed a superseding misdemeanor information charging defendant with Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree. Defendant was arraigned on that charge on December 6, 2017 in Yonkers City Court by Judge Adrian Armstrong.
On February 18, 2016, a misdemeanor information charging defendant with one count of Bail Jumping in the Second Degree (P.L. § 215.55) was filed in White Plains City Court. Defendant was arraigned on the charge on July 21, 2016.
On April 19, 2017, defendant was arraigned on a charge of Obstruction of Governmental Administration. A superseding violation information, dated June 14, 2017, was filed on February 9, 2018 charging defendant with two counts of Disorderly Conduct. Defendant was arraigned on the Disorderly Conduct charges on February 9, 2018.
MOTIONS :
Motion to Dismiss Docket # 18-0282:
On February 13, 2018, defendant filed a two page document labeled Objection # 3. Defendant states that the People filed the superseding information on this docket outside of the statute of limitations, in that the alleged crime occurred in July 2015, greater than two years from when the People filed the superseding information, October 17, 2017. She states that the People previously charged the defendant with disorderly conduct for this conduct, but that on November 24, 2015, the White Plains City Court dismissed the disorderly conduct charge. She argues that the state never re-filed an accusatory instrument within the statutory period. She further argues that after November 24, 2015, she was not required to appear to confront any charge predicated on the alleged events that occurred in the Westchester County Courthouse in July 2015.
In opposition to the defendant's application, the People argue that the defendant's motion is without merit. The People argue that pursuant to CPL 30.10, criminal actions must be commenced within two years of the commission of a misdemeanor. The People state that with respect to this docket, the prosecution was commenced on the day of the incident, July 30, 2015, with the filing of a misdemeanor information, charging defendant with Disorderly Conduct (P.L. 240.20 (4) and Obstruction of Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (P.L. 195.05). That same day, the defendant was arraigned on the charges and entered a not guilty plea. The people announced their readiness for trial the same day. The People argue that on November 24, 2015, the White Plains City court only dismissed one charge, the Disorderly Conduct charge, thereby leaving the Obstruction of Governmental Administration charge pending. On October 17, 2017, the defendant was arraigned on a superseding misdemeanor information, which amended the original charge to Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree. The People argue that despite defendant's claims, she was still obligated to appear on the docket in White Plains City Court, Yonkers City Court, and now this Court, because one charge was still viable and pending.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, defendant's objection/motion to dismiss is denied. The People did file an accusatory instrument with respect to the alleged incident that occurred at the Westchester County Court house in July 2015, within the statutory period provided for in CPL 30.10. Further, per CPL 100.50, the People filed a timely superseding information on October 17, 2017.
Defendant moves for the removal of Attorney Angelo MacDonald as assigned counsel and for the withdrawal of motions filed by counsel. In support of this application, defendant argued in court and now in her written papers that she had an attorney-client agreement with Mr. MacDonald, wherein he was to provide her with copies of any court filings before submitting them to the court. She maintains that Mr. MacDonald failed to provide her with copies of the motion before filing it with the court. With respect to Docket # 18-0281, defendant argues that she does not want to suppress statement evidence because those statements establish that she requested a medical accommodation from the police. She maintains that Mr. MacDonald's application to suppress these statements will prejudice her defense. With respect to Docket # 18-0280, defendant argues that her prior counsel already filed an omnibus motion, discovery motion and demand bill of particulars for this docket. She states that she gave copies of these documents to Mr. MacDonald. She further states that the People already filed a response to these motions, such that they were fully submitted in White Plains City Court. She maintains that the White Plains City Court, with the consent of the People, already granted her request for a Clayton hearing. Defendant states that she discussed potential witnesses with Mr. MacDonald and informed him that he would need the case transcript to confirm that the Clayton hearing was granted. She further argues that the pre-trial motion period has expired and that Mr. MacDonald, with the filing of the instant motion is giving the People a second opportunity to make arguments it has already lost or waived.
The discretion and responsibility for the selection of assigned counsel rests with the Court. A relationship of mutual confidence between lawyer and client is important to the lawyer's fulfillment of his professional functions. However, "[t]he right of an indigent criminal defendant to the services of a court-appointed lawyer does not encompass a right to appointment of successive lawyers at the defendant's option" ( People v. Wright , 147 AD3d 1088 [2d Dept 2017] (citing People v. Washington , 25 NY3d 1091, 1095 [2015] ). A defendant must demonstrate "good cause for substitution" ( People v. Medina , 44 NY2d 199 [1978] ), such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel (see People v. Sides , 75 NY2d 822 [1990] ; People v. Stevenson , 36 AD3d 634 [2d Dept. 2007] ) before new counsel is assigned. Factors to consider in determining whether there is good cause include, "the timing of the defendant's request, its effect on the progress of the case and whether counsel will provide the defendant with meaningful assistance ( People v. Martin , 41 AD3d 616 [2007] ).
Defendant's application for the removal of Mr. MacDonald as her counsel is denied. The Court finds that defendant's assertions of a disagreement on how and what motions are to be filed by Mr. MacDonald do not demonstrate a serious genuine conflict of interest or irreconcilable conflict warranting the assignment of new counsel. Defendant has had at least three assigned counsel attorneys represent her in these matters before Mr. MacDonald was assigned. Further these matters have been pending for over two years. The court will not further delay the administration of justice with the assignment of new counsel. Accordingly the request to assign new counsel is denied ( People v. Wright , 147 AD3d 1088 [2d Dept. 2017] ).
In light of defendant's April 26, 2016 and April 30, 2016 requests for the Court to decide the motions that have already been submitted by her former attorneys, and to disregard the Notice of Ominibus Motion filed by Mr. MacDonald on Dockets # 18-0280 and 18-0281 on April 25, 2018, that omnibus motion is hereby considered withdrawn.
Motion to Unseal Court Records:
On February 9, 2018, defendant filed a motion for unsealing of court records. In support of the motion, defendant affirms that since the inception of this proceeding, she had requested open access to her court files. She affirms that she first received full access to her court files on February 8, 2018, after the matter was transferred to Mount Vernon City Court from Yonkers City Court. While reviewing her files, defendant observed a sealed yellow, manila envelope. Defendant states that the clerk advised her she could not release the records to defendant because they are "sealed." Defendant states that she never filed to have any records sealed under these dockets and thereby seeks an order from this Court authorizing the clerks of this court to release any and all documents that were previously deemed sealed.
The Court has now had an opportunity to conduct an in camera inspection of the folder and contents of the manila envelope. The manila envelope marked on the outside "Per Hon. MAM NOT ENTITLED TO ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS". This Court will disclose that the packet relates to a FOIL request # 2016-293 made by defendant and/or her former counsel Rachel Filasto. On or about September 21, 2016, the Westchester County Department of Public Safety responded to the request and mailed a copy of its response to "Charlene Morisseau (C/O Counsel), Rachel Filasto, Esq., Harold, Salant, Strassfield & Speilberg, 81 Main Street, White Plains, NY 10601". In the letter defendant was advised the...
To continue reading
Request your trial