People v. Ramchair

• Decision Date: 29 March 2007
• Docket Number: 24.
• Citation: 8 N.Y.3d 313,864 N.E.2d 1288
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Racky RAMCHAIR, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

864 N.E.2d 1288

8 N.Y.3d 313

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Racky RAMCHAIR, Appellant.

24.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 29, 2007.

Frank Handelman, New York City, for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Jennifer Hagan and John M. Castellano of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PIGOTT, J.

The issue presented on this appeal is whether defendant was denied meaningful representation when his appellate counsel failed to argue that the trial court should have granted his motion for a mistrial. We conclude that he was not and therefore affirm the order of the Appellate Division.

In 1995, defendant was arrested on suspicion of robbery of a cabdriver in Queens, New York. A lineup was held, with counsel for defendant present. The cabdriver identified defendant in the lineup as one of the persons who had robbed him. Defendant was charged with robbery in the first and second degrees.

During his first trial, defendant was assaulted in jail and, because he was unable to assist in his own defense, the trial court granted defendant's motion for a mistrial. During his second trial, one of the jurors became ill and, over defendant's objection, the trial court declared another mistrial. During a third trial, as in the prior two, defense counsel challenged the cabdriver's identification of defendant. In rebuttal, the prosecutor elicited testimony from a detective that defense counsel was present during the lineup and made no objection to its composition. The detective further testified that, had defense counsel objected to the lineup, he would have considered a change in the composition or at least noted the objection. Defense counsel promptly objected, arguing that such testimony placed him in the position of being a witness at the trial. The trial court overruled the objection.

Following the court's ruling, and outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel sought permission to testify as to his conduct during the lineup, including objections he had raised at that time and why other objections had not been raised. The trial court summarily denied that request, ruling that in order to testify, defense counsel should have withdrawn as the attorney for defendant prior to the commencement of trial.

At the end of the detective's testimony, defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the grounds that it was improper to allow the prosecution to imply through the testimony of the detective that defense counsel approved of the lineup procedure, and that defense counsel should have been afforded the opportunity to testify in rebuttal. The trial court denied that motion as well.

On appeal from a conviction of all charges, appellate counsel raised two claims. First, appellate counsel argued that defendant's double jeopardy rights were violated because the trial court retried defendant after it declared a mistrial at the second trial over defense counsel's objection. Second, and relevant to this appeal, appellate counsel argued that defendant's constitutional right to present a defense was violated when the trial court precluded defense counsel from testifying in rebuttal to the testimony that counsel was present at the lineup and had not objected to its composition. Significant for purposes of this appeal, appellate counsel did not argue that the trial court should have granted defendant's mistrial motion. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant's conviction (308 A.D.2d 601, 764 N.Y.S.2d 725 [2003]), and a Judge of this Court denied leave to appeal.

Defendant thereafter filed a pro se petition for federal habeas corpus relief raising the same arguments made by his appellate counsel on the direct appeal. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied defendant relief on those claims, but opined that defendant may have a meritorious claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not specifically raising the trial court's failure to grant a mistrial. Thus, the District Court held the petition in abeyance pending defendant's exhaustion of state remedies with regard to that claim (Ramchair v. Conway, 2005 WL 2786975, 2005 U.S. Dist LEXIS 25852 [E.D.N.Y.2005]). Defendant then filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis with the Appellate Division asserting that his appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to argue that the trial court erred in not granting defendant's motion for a mistrial. The Appellate Division denied defendant's application without comment (27 A.D.3d 668, 810 N.Y.S.2d 685 [2006]) and a Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal. We now affirm.

Defendants in criminal cases have both a state and a federal constitutional right to effective assistance of appellate counsel (see e.g. People v. Turner, 5 N.Y.3d 476, 806 N.Y.S.2d 154, 840 N.E.2d 123 [2005]). We have previously declared that the "meaningful representation" criterion...