People v. Samuels

• Decision Date: 04 October 2016
• Citation: 143 A.D.3d 401,38 N.Y.S.3d 541,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06423
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reynold SAMUELS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

143 A.D.3d 401

38 N.Y.S.3d 541

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06423

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Reynold SAMUELS, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Oct. 4, 2016.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Mark W. Zeno of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Marianne Stracquadanio of counsel), for respondent.

TOM, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, GESMER, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Lorenzo, J.), entered March 9, 2015, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10

motion to vacate a May 11, 2010 judgment of conviction, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a hearing on defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

A court considering a CPL 440.10

motion challenging the validity of a plea and raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel must be guided by certain principles. The “longstanding test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant” (Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 [1985] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). “On a CPL 440.10 motion pursuant to [subdivision (1)(h) ], the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that the judgment was obtained in violation of a right of the defendant under the constitution of this state or of the United States” (People v. Gross, 26 N.Y.3d 689, 693, 27 N.Y.S.3d 459, 47 N.E.3d 738 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Under the federal standard, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient with the result that he or she was prejudiced in such a way as to deprive him or her of a fair trial, or that defendant would have gone to trial rather than take a plea had counsel's performance not been deficient (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ; Hill, 474 U.S. at 59, 106 S.Ct. 366 ; People v. McDonald, 1 N.Y.3d 109, 114, 769 N.Y.S.2d 781, 802 N.E.2d 131 [2003], citing Hill ). The New York State test to determine the issue of prejudice with respect to ineffective assistance of counsel claims “focuses on the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case” (People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 156, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 [2005] [quotation marks and citation omitted] ). “A defendant advancing an ineffective assistance [of counsel] claim must ‘demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's alleged shortcomings' ” (People v. Hogan, 26 N.Y.3d 779, 785, 28 N.Y.S.3d 1, 48 N.E.3d 58 [2016]

, quoting People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998] ; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 [1988] ). “A single error may qualify as ineffective assistance, but only when the error is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise a defendant's right to a fair trial” (People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d at 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Calderon, 66 A.D.3d 314, 320, 884 N.Y.S.2d 29 [1st Dept.2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 858, 891 N.Y.S.2d 693, 920 N.E.2d 98 [2009] ).

Where a CPL 440.10

motion is made, a hearing to develop additional background facts is not “invariably necessary” (People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834 [1985] ). A court may deny the motion without a hearing if, among other things, “the motion is based upon the existence or occurrence of facts and the moving papers do not contain sworn allegations substantiating or tending to substantiate all the essential facts” (CPL 440.30[4][b]¹ ). Denial of a CPL 440.10 motion is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard (People v. Samandarov, 13 N.Y.3d 433, 892 N.Y.S.2d 823, 920 N.E.2d 930 [2009] ).

Based upon the foregoing principles, we find the motion court erred in denying defendant's motion without a hearing.

In Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356, 367, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010)

, which applies to this case, the Supreme Court held that, in connection with a plea, effective assistance requires that defense counsel advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of his plea. Apparently, such advice was not given here. Despite the Probation Department's concern over defendant's immigration status, there is no indication on this record that it was ever discussed with defendant. This failure meets the first prong of the Strickland test.

The issue before us thus turns on whether counsel's lack of advice on the deportation consequences of defendant's guilty plea resulted in sufficient prejudice to warrant the withdrawal of his guilty plea. In order to prevail, a defendant must demonstrate a “reasonable probability that, [had counsel properly advised him of the implication of his plea on his immigration status], he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” (Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. at 59, 474 U.S. 52

; see also

Padilla, 559 U.S. at 366, 130 S.Ct. 1473 ; People v. Hernandez, 22 N.Y.3d 972, 975, 978 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1 N.E.3d 785 [2013], cert. denied sub nom.

Hernandez v. New York, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1900, 188 L.Ed.2d 930 [2014] ; People v. McDonald, 1 N.Y.3d 109, 113–114, 769 N.Y.S.2d 781, 802 N.E.2d 131 [2003] ). As noted, defendant alleges that he would have gone to trial, despite its hazards and the potentially significant incarceration that a conviction would entail, had he been advised he would be deported. Although to have done so would have meant the rejection of “the very beneficial deal” his counsel had negotiated, the motion court erred in finding that defendant's claim was not “credible,” given the length of time defendant resided legally in the United States, and the other factors raised in his motion papers. Such credibility determinations should be made only after a hearing (see e.g. People...