People v. Washington
| Decision Date | 15 June 1976 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Steven WASHINGTON, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Defendant was convicted on July 25, 1975 of two felonies and two misdemeanors after a lengthy jury trial and on September 19, 1975 this court imposed sentence. Defendant is incarcerated and now moves pro se under section 440.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law (writ of error Coram nobis) to vacate the judgments of conviction.
This motion presents a unique and novel question of law which is dehors the record and is without precedent. The defendant asserts that he recently first learned through the news media that the 'lawyer' who represented him throughout the case, one Albert Silver, was not and has never been a duly licensed attorney at law admitted to practice in the courts of this State, and this fact is admitted in the opposing affirmation of the District Attorney. Originally, the defendant privately retained Mr. Silver who openly held himself out as a licensed lawyer. On the depletion of the defendant's funds, his application for Mr. Silver to continue to represent him under Article 18--B of the County Law was granted. there is no dispute to the defendant's allegation that he never had knowledge that his 'lawyer' was unlicensed.
At the outset, the court acknowledges that Mr. Silver conducted himself as an able and skillful criminal lawyer. Further, this court doubts whether the result of the trial would have been different or more favorable to the defendant had he been represented by a licensed lawyer. Mr. Silver's representation of this defendant was that of a competent legal technician who explored all pretrial proceedings, motions, pretrial memoranda and a trial memorandum of law to buttress this conclusion. The reports in the news media corroborate the long experience and legal ability of Albert Silver, who is reported to have once served with distinction as the City Attorney in the Village of Glen Cove. Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, this court is constrained to hold that a defendant's right to counsel in a criminal case under both the Federal and State Constitutions means a duly licensed lawyer and nothing less. There just cannot be any substitute for this constitutional mandate. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Perez
...maintain over his professional staff." (337 So.2d 400, 403.) In People v. Cox (1957) 12 Ill.2d 265, 146 N.E.2d 19; People v. Washington (1976) 87 Misc.2d 103, 384 N.Y.S.2d 691, and Baker v. State (1912) 19 Okl.Cr. 62, 130 P. 820, the person who represented the defendant acted without superv......
-
Vance v. Lehman
...had the "effect of making [Potack's] membership in the Pennsylvania Bar void ab initio." App. 44D. Citing People v. Washington, 87 Misc.2d 103, 384 N.Y.S.2d 691 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1976), for the proposition that the term "counsel" in the Sixth Amendment referred to "a duly licensed lawyer and noth......
-
Johnson v. State, 50500
...or who has never passed the bar examination has been held to be inadequate representation as a matter of law. People v. Washington, 87 Misc.2d 103, 384 N.Y.S.2d 691 (Sup.Ct.1976); Harrison v. United States, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 245, 387 F.2d 203 (1967); United States v. Grismore, 546 F.2d 844 (......
-
Wilson v. People
...legal training or who has never passed the bar examination is inadequate representation as a matter of law. People v. Washington, 87 Misc.2d 103, 384 N.Y.S.2d 691 (Sup.Ct.1976); Harrison v. United States, 387 F.2d 203 (D.C.Cir.1967); United States v. Grismore, 546 F.2d 344 (10th Cir. 1976).......
-
People v. Perez - an Initial Look at the Sixth Amendment Status of Student Practice Rules
...defined as licensed counsel. See, e.g., Huckleberry v. State, 337 So. 2d 400 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976); People v. Washington, 87 Misc. 2d 103, 384 N.Y.S.2d 691 (Sup. Ct. 1976). But see Monaghan, supra note 3, who argues that "[t]he question [under the sixth amendment] is not whether the ac......