People v. Washington
| Decision Date | 25 June 2015 |
| Citation | 34 N.E.3d 853,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05511,13 N.Y.S.3d 343,25 N.Y.3d 1091 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kareem WASHINGTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
25 N.Y.3d 1091
34 N.E.3d 853
13 N.Y.S.3d 343
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05511
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Kareem WASHINGTON, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of New York.
June 25, 2015.
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York City (Kami Lizarraga and Gregory Silbert of counsel), and Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City (Rosemary Herbert of counsel), for appellant.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Marc I. Eida, Joseph N. Ferdenzi and Nancy D. Killian of counsel), for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant Kareem Washington was arrested in 2008 in connection with a gunpoint robbery that occurred in the Bronx. Prior to trial, he filed a pro se motion seeking new defense counsel; defendant's application included a form “Affidavit in Support of Motion for Reassignment of Counsel,” in which he circled every one of the 10 possible grounds of ineffectiveness listed. Defendant also included a “Statement of Facts,” in which he alleged that his attorney “failed to produce ... discovery materials” and “denied to formulate an Omnibus Motion to contest ... lack of identification, or to preserve requested pretrial hearings.” Defendant further asserted that his attorney ignored his requests to counter “the lack of identification and the negative results of the DNA test,” and “refused to take heed to defendant's factual version of events, and to further discuss or develop possible defense strategies beneficial to him.” The motion papers were postmarked May 14, 2011, about six weeks before trial, but defendant mailed the materials to “Part 80,” and the trial was moved to Part 13. Although it is not clear from the record whether defense counsel or the District Attorney actually received the papers prior to trial, defendant did not mention the motion to Supreme Court or counsel before or during trial.
On July 7, 2011, a jury convicted defendant of first-degree robbery (
Penal Law § 160.15 ). At the sentencing hearing on July 28, 2011, the judge advised the People and defense counsel that he had received the pro se motion four days after the guilty verdict. Supreme Court asked defense counsel if he
wanted to comment on the motion, to which counsel responded that he “d[id]n't want to put [him]self in opposition to [defendant].” Counsel added that certain items in the motion were “incorrect,” but he did not elaborate.
The judge then asked defendant why he did not call attention to the motion or any of his complaints. Defendant claimed that he had tried to talk with the judge about the motion before trial, but a court officer prevented him. The judge expressed disbelief about this explanation and noted that, in any event, the defendant “had many, many, many, many other moments after that” when he and the judge “spoke[ ] person to person ... and [defendant] never raised this.” On the merits, Supreme Court viewed defendant's allegations skeptically, “based on [his] observations during the course of the trial.” Specifically, the judge addressed defendant as follows:
“You say things in here that are not true. You say that you had no discovery. It was evident to me [that] you had discovery. It was evident to me you had all the discovery. You complained about negative DNA results. The testimony in the trial is that there [were] positive DNA results. You complained that [your attorney] didn't discuss strategy with you. I know he discussed strategy with you. I don't see any thing in here based on my observations during the course of the trial that any of this is true.”
Supreme Court then invited defendant to air his complaints of ineffective assistance. Defendant asserted that defense counsel “never did discuss any strategy” with him before trial, despite defendant's numerous requests. Defendant also alleged that counsel failed to meet with him before trial, except for a “seven to eight minute[ ]” video conference a week or two beforehand, during which he and his attorney didn't really “connect.” Apart from this video conference, defendant complained, he “never really had a chance to discuss anything with [counsel] prior to being in court.” Finally, defendant alleged that his attorney provided him only “some of the discovery” that he had sought. Defendant eventually admitted, however, that he did receive the discovery he requested.
Supreme Court next asked defense counsel to respond to defendant's statements, and counsel explained what he had done prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Burney
...or her complaints, and the court may also allow defense counsel to explain his or her performance (see People v. Washington , 25 N.Y.3d 1091, 1095, 13 N.Y.S.3d 343, 34 N.E.3d 853 [2015] ; People v. Nelson , 7 N.Y.3d 883, 884, 826 N.Y.S.2d 593, 860 N.E.2d 56 [2006] ; People v. Okolo , 35 A.D......
-
People v. Alberts
...upon a showing of good cause ( People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 [1990] ; see People v. Washington, 25 N.Y.3d 1091, 1095, 13 N.Y.S.3d 343, 34 N.E.3d 853 [2015] ; People v. Manley, 70 A.D.3d 1125, 1125, 894 N.Y.S.2d 575 [2010] ). Where a defendant makes a......
-
People v. Polite
...at defendant's option" ( People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 ; see People v. Washington, 25 N.Y.3d 1091, 1095, 13 N.Y.S.3d 343, 34 N.E.3d 853 ; People v. Cheeks, 107 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 966 N.Y.S.2d 893 ). However, courts must "carefully evaluate serious co......
-
People v. Matthews
...good cause for substitution ( People v. Sides , 75 N.Y.2d at 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 ; see People v. Washington , 25 N.Y.3d 1091, 1095, 13 N.Y.S.3d 343, 34 N.E.3d 853 [2015] ; People v. Smith , 18 N.Y.3d 588, 592–593, 942 N.Y.S.2d 5, 965 N.E.2d 232 [2012] ), and there was no ......