People v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 23 March 2018
• Docket Number: KA 16–01947,1412
• Citation: 159 A.D.3d 1600,72 N.Y.S.3d 748
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Earl J. WILSON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

159 A.D.3d 1600
72 N.Y.S.3d 748

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Earl J. WILSON, Defendant–Appellant.

1412
KA 16–01947

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

Entered: March 23, 2018

J. SCOTT PORTER, SENECA FALLS, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

BARRY L. PORSCH, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WATERLOO, FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

159 A.D.3d 1600

Appeal from a judgment of the Seneca County Court ( Dennis F. Bender, J.), rendered August 19, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated driving while intoxicated, aggravated vehicular homicide (two counts) and manslaughter in the second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Seneca County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of one count of aggravated driving while intoxicated ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2–a][a] ), and two counts each of aggravated vehicular homicide ( Penal Law § 125.14[1] ) and manslaughter in the second degree (§ 125.15[1] ). Defendant's conviction arises out of a fatal motor vehicle accident that occurred when the pickup truck operated by defendant collided with a motorcycle, killing both the operator of the motorcycle and the passenger on it.

We agree with defendant that County Court erred in summarily denying his motion to withdraw his plea. In support of

159 A.D.3d 1601

the motion, defendant contended, inter alia, that the People violated their Brady obligation by failing to disclose the autopsy and toxicology reports of the motorcycle operator. We note at the outset that we reject the People's contention that defendant forfeited his right to raise the alleged Brady violation by pleading guilty (see People v. Ortiz, 127 A.D.2d 305, 308, 515 N.Y.S.2d 317 [3d Dept. 1987], lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 652, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1045, 512 N.E.2d 571 [1987] ; People v. Benard, 163 Misc.2d 176, 181, 620 N.Y.S.2d 242 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 1994] ; see generally People v. Fisher, 28 N.Y.3d 717, 722, 49 N.Y.S.3d 344, 71 N.E.3d 932 [2017] ). Brady is premised upon considerations of fairness and due process (see People v. Mangarillo, 152 A.D.3d 1061, 1064, 59 N.Y.S.3d 572 [3d Dept. 2017] ; People v. Martin, 240 A.D.2d 5, 8, 669 N.Y.S.2d 268 [1st Dept. 1998], lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 856, 677 N.Y.S.2d 86, 699 N.E.2d 446 [1998] ), and we conclude that it would undermine the prosecutor's Brady obligations if a defendant is deemed to have forfeited his or her right to raise an alleged Brady violation by entering a plea without the knowledge that the People possessed exculpatory evidence (see People v. DeLaRosa, 48 A.D.3d 1098, 1098–1099, 851 N.Y.S.2d 775 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 861, 860 N.Y.S.2d 488, 890 N.E.2d 251 [2008] ). To the extent that our prior decisions hold that a defendant,...