People v. Reyes
| Decision Date | 26 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Indictment No. 6094/2005 |
| Citation | 2014 NY Slip Op 32709 (U) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, v. WILLIAM REYES, Defendant. |
DECISION AND ORDER
Defendant stands convicted, following a jury trial in Supreme Court, Kings County, of two counts of Robbery in the First Degree and one count of Robbery in the Third Degree. On August 17, 2006, this Court sentenced Defendant as a persistent violent felony offender to consecutive prison terms of twenty years to life on each count of Robbery in the First Degree and three and a half to seven years on the one count of Robbery in the Third Degree. (Ingram, J., at trial and sentence).
On or about November 23, 2007, Defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, alleging five claims: (1) the pretrial lineups were unduly suggestive; (2) Defendant was denied his right to counsel at the lineups; (3) the court's denial of Defendant's motion to sever the charges was an abuse of discretion; (4) the evidence was legally insufficient and the conviction was against the weight of the evidence; and (5) the consecutive sentences were cruel and unusual and unduly harsh and excessive. The People filed a response on January 29, 2008.
On February 29, 2008, the Appellate Division granted Defendant's request to file a pro se supplemental brief. On September 3, 2008, Defendant filed his brief alleging three errors: (1) Defendant was denied his right to counsel at the lineups; (2) Defendant's Brady and Rosario rightswere violated when the People withheld evidence establishing that the complaining witness in one of the robberies had failed to identify Defendant in a show-up conducted shortly after the robbery; and (3) Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. The People filed supplemental brief on October 30, 2008. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment on March 17, 2009. People v. Reyes, 60 A.D.3d 873 (2d Dept. 2009). On June 4, 2009, the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. People v. Reyes, 12 N.Y.3d 920 (2009)(Read, J.).
In pro se motion dated October 6, 2008, Defendant moved in Supreme Court, Kings County, to vacate the judgment pursuant to C.P.L. § 440.10. Defendant claimed that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over one of the counts of Robbery in the First Degree and that the People withheld exculpatory evidence pertaining to the lineups. The People opposed Defendant's motion by papers dated November 25, 2008. This Court denied the motion by decision and order dated February 3, 2009. The Appellate Division denied Defendant's application for leave to appeal on November 17, 2009.
On May 25, 2010, Defendant petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for habeas corpus relief, raising numerous claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel, harsh and excessive sentence, and that the lineups were suggestive. The People opposed Defendant's habeas corpus petition by papers dated August 9, 2010. On September 10, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto denied Defendant's motion for writ of habeas corpus.
In pro se motion dated August 23, 2010, Defendant moved to vacate his judgment of conviction pursuant to C.P.L.§ 440.10. Defendant claimed that he was not arraigned on the indictment in accordance with C.P.L. § 210.15 and that the attorney who represented him at thearraignment rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. The People opposed Defendant's motion by papers dated October 12, 2010. By decision and order dated December 2, 2010, this Court denied Defendant's motion in its entirety. The Appellate Division denied leave to appeal.
On March 20, 2012, Defendant made a motion for a writ of error coram nobis in the Appellate Division, Second Department. Defendant claimed that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the claim that he had not been properly arraigned on the indictment. The People opposed the motion by papers dated June 21, 2012. The Appellate Division denied the motion on September 26, 2012. People v. Reyes, 98 A.D.3d 1141(2d Dept. 2012). The Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on January 15, 2013. People v. Reyes, 20 N.Y.3d 1014(2013)(Smith, J.)
In a pro se motion dated May 13, 2014, Defendant now moves to vacate his judgment of conviction pursuant to C.P.L.§ 440.10. Defendant claims that his trial attorney, Leon Schrage, Esq., rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately advise Defendant on whether to accept a plea bargain offered by the People. Defendant also claims prosecutorial misconduct. The People argue that Defendant's present claim is barred procedurally from this Court's review and is entirely meritless. In deciding the instant motion, this Court considered Defendant's moving papers, the People's papers in opposition, Defendant's reply papers, the court file, transcripts and applicable law.
C.P.L. § 440.10(3)(c) authorizes the Court to deny a 440.10 motion when "upon a previous motion made pursuant to this section, the defendant was in a position adequately to raise the ground or issue underlying the present motion, but did not do so." See People v. Cochrane, 27 A.D.3d 659 (2d Dept. 2006); People v. Jossiah, 2 A.D.3d 877 (2d Dept. 2003), lv denied, 2 N.Y.3d 742 (2004). Based on the minutes, Defendant was aware of the prior offer of the People and knew of the advice, or lack of advice, that his counsel provided him with respect to the plea offer when he filed his two prior 440 motions. Therefore, this Court may deny the motion because this issue could have been raised in Defendant's two previous 440.10 motions.
Even if this Court were to determine Defendant's claim that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately advise Defendant on whether to accept the plea offer, this Court would still deny Defendant's claim. Under New York law, the constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel is satisfied when "...the evidence, the law and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality, and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation..." People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708. 712 (1998). "Meaningful representation by counsel includes the conveyance of accurate information regarding plea negotiations, including relaying all plea offers made by the prosecution...". People v. Rogers, 8 A.D.3d 888, 890 (3rd Dept. 2004). It is settled law that "... to prevail on his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, defendant had the burden to demonstrate that a plea offer was made, that defense counsel failed to inform him of that offer, and that he would have been willing to accept the offer." People v. Fernandez, 5 N.Y.3d 813, 814 (2005).
The federal standard for establishing that a defendant was provided with less than meaningful representation is somewhat different from the law of New York. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Supreme Court decided two cases that specifically addressed the importance of effective assistance of counsel in plea negotiations. Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012; Missouri v. Frye,132 S.Ct. 1399(2012). In Lafler, the Court stated that "Defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, a right that extends to the plea-bargaining process." 132 S.Ct. at 1384. Likewise, in Frye, the Supreme Court emphasized the fact that a criminal defendant must have effective assistance of counsel during the critical stage of plea negotiations under the Sixth Amendment and that "claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea bargain context are governed by the two-part test in Strickland...". Frye, 132 S.Ct. at 1407-08. A defendant's federal constitutional rights are violated if trial counsel fails to meet a minimum standard of effectiveness and that failure causes defendant to suffer prejudice. Strickland, 466 U.S. 668. According to the Supreme Court's holding in Strickland, prejudice occurs ''when there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id., at 694.
Defendant has not established that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Defendant has provided nothing besides a self-serving affidavit to support his allegations that counsel provided inadequate advice on whether Defendant should have accepted the plea offer. In the instant case, it is undisputed that on March 20, 2006, the People made an offer of a plea agreement involving Defendant pleading guilty to two counts of third-degree robbery in return for consecutive sentences of two to four years on each...
To continue reading
Request your trial