People v. Salcedo
| Decision Date | 10 July 1986 |
| Citation | 497 N.E.2d 292,68 N.Y.2d 130,506 N.Y.S.2d 154 |
| Parties | , 497 N.E.2d 292 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sergio SALCEDO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The defendant appeals from an order of the Appellate Division, 100 A.D.2d 749, 473 N.Y.S.2d 295, affirming his conviction of arson and reckless endangerment. His primary contention is that he was deprived of his right to counsel of his choice when the trial court disqualified his retained counsel on application of the prosecutor. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the order of the Appellate Division.
In 1980 the defendant was indicted for setting fire to a grocery store which he owned. Almost a year later the defendant's cousin was indicted in connection with another arson incident, and retained the same attorney to represent him. Approximately one month prior to the date scheduled for the defendant's trial the prosecutor moved to have the defendant's lawyer disqualified from continuing to represent the defendant. In support of the motion the prosecutor claimed that a recent investigation showed that the defendant's cousin and certain other family members were involved in an arson conspiracy, that several of them had been indicted and the investigation was still continuing with respect to certain homicides, that the defendant had knowledge of the conspiracy which the prosecution wished to use against the other family members, particularly his cousin, but that the defendant refused to cooperate when offered a lesser plea in exchange for his assistance. The prosecutor urged that joint representation of the defendant and his cousin by the same attorney created a conflict of interest for the attorney, and that the attorney should therefore be disqualified from continuing to represent the defendant.
In response, defense counsel stated that he had advised the defendant of the prosecutor's plea offer and the potential conflict, that the defendant's position was that he had no information to offer and did not wish to assist in the prosecution of relatives, and that he wished the attorney to continue with the joint representation. Defense counsel urged that the defendant had the right to waive the apparent conflict, particularly where the defendant and his cousin had been separately indicted for separate incidents, and that the grounds asserted by the prosecutor were, without more, insufficient to deprive the defendant of the right to continue to be represented by counsel of his choice.
At the hearing on the motion, the court advised the defendant of the prosecutor's position, the possible conflict, and the defendant's right to conflict-free counsel. The defendant stated that he understood and nevertheless chose to continue with the attorney, prompting the court to remark that the defendant did indeed seem to understand. The court then held an in camera hearing where the People produced witnesses tending to show that the defendant did have knowledge of the alleged conspiracy. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court disqualified the attorney without providing any reasons.
Thereafter, the defendant was represented by court-appointed counsel. He still refused, however, to accept the prosecutor's plea offer and, after a jury trial, was found guilty of arson and reckless endangerment.
In an opinion filed nearly two years after the disqualification, and about one year after the defendant's conviction, the court stated that it had granted the People's motion to disqualify defendant's counsel because it found that there was a conflict, and the defendant did not waive his right to conflict-free counsel knowingly and intelligently. This determination was based on the fact that the defendant was nervous during the hearing, appeared reluctant to speak, directed one-word responses to the court and generally spoke softly through assigned counsel and did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Chambers
...1, 505 N.Y.S.2d 824, 496 N.E.2d 844, supra; United States v. Armedo-Sarmiento, 524 F.2d 591 (2d Cir.)). In People v. Salcedo, 68 N.Y.2d 130, 135, 506 N.Y.S.2d 154, 497 N.E.2d 292, the Court of Appeals stated "object of the inquiry is not to determine whether the defendant should be permitte......
-
People v. De Sarno
...656, 563 N.Y.S.2d 20, 564 N.E.2d 630; People v. McDonald, 68 N.Y.2d 1, 505 N.Y.S.2d 824, 496 N.E.2d 844; People v. Salcedo, 68 N.Y.2d 130, 135, 506 N.Y.S.2d 154, 497 N.E.2d 292). "A lawyer simultaneously representing two clients whose interests actually conflict cannot give either client un......
-
People v. Salcedo
...by retained counsel of his own choice and the defendant insisted upon this counsel representing him (see, People v. Salcedo, 68 N.Y.2d 130, 506 N.Y.S.2d 154, 497 N.E.2d 292). While the trial court's instruction addressed to the defendant's failure to testify at trial was improper, there is ......
-
People v. Limongelli
...contends that in disqualifying his first two choices of counsel, the court ignored the procedures prescribed by People v. Salcedo, 68 N.Y.2d 130, 506 N.Y.S.2d 154, 497 N.E.2d 292, and in doing so, violated his constitutional right to counsel of his own choice. We disagree. The right of an i......