Relin v. Connell

• Decision Date: 10 June 1998
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5487 Matter of Honorable Howard R. RELIN, as Monroe County District Attorney, Petitioner, v. Honorable John J. CONNELL, as Monroe County Court Judge, Angel Mateo, Respondents, and Honorable Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General of New York State, Intervenor.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 192

674 N.Y.S.2d 192

251 A.D.2d 1041, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5487

Matter of Honorable Howard R. RELIN, as Monroe County

District Attorney, Petitioner, v. Honorable John J. CONNELL, as Monroe County Court Judge, Angel Mateo, Respondents, and Honorable Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General of New York

State, Intervenor.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

June 10, 1998.

Monroe County District Attorney (Wendy Lehmann, of counsel), Rochester, for petitioner.

John J. Connell by Donald Thompson, Rochester, for respondent Connell.

Capital Defender's Office by Joseph Flood, Rochester, for respondent Mateo.

New York Civil Liberties Union by Christopher Dunn, New York City, for amicus curiae.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Queens County, Kew Gardens, for New York State District Attorneys' Association, amicus curiae.

Before LAWTON, J.P., and HAYES, PIGOTT, BOEHM and FALLON, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

The People commenced this original CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to prohibit respondent the Honorable John J. Connell from enforcing an order declaring CPL 220.10(5)(e), 220.30(3)(b)(vii) and 220.60(2)(a) unconstitutional. We deny that part of the petition seeking a writ of prohibition (see generally, Matter of Gold v. Gartenstein, 54 N.Y.2d 627, 442 N.Y.S.2d 504, 425 N.E.2d 892; Matter of Van Wie v. Kirk, 244 A.D.2d 13, 675 N.Y.S.2d 469 [decided herewith] ). Because this issue is of critical importance and is likely to recur, we grant that part of the petition seeking, in the alternative, to convert the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action (see, CPLR 103[c]; Matter of Morgenthau v. Roberts, 65 N.Y.2d 749, 751, 492 N.Y.S.2d 21, 481 N.E.2d 561; Matter of Morgenthau v. Erlbaum, 59 N.Y.2d 143, 151-152, 464 N.Y.S.2d 392, 451 N.E.2d 150, cert. denied 464 U.S. 993, 104 S.Ct. 486, 78 L.Ed.2d 682), and we grant judgment declaring those sections constitutional.

The People contend that the provisions of New York's death penalty statute governing kinds of pleas (CPL 220.10[5][e] ), those governing pleas to part of an indictment or covering other indictments (CPL 220.30[3][b][vii] ) and those governing the change of a plea (CPL 220.60[2][a] ) do not violate respondent Angel Mateo's right to a jury trial and therefore are constitutional. We agree. Those sections do not grant a defendant the unilateral right to plead guilty and thereby avoid the death penalty, and thus they do not "needlessly encourage[ ]" guilty pleas in violation of defendant's right to demand a jury trial (United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 583, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138; see, Matter of Hynes v. Tomei, 237 A.D.2d 52, 666 N.Y.S.2d 687; see also, Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212, 99 S.Ct. 492, 58 L.Ed.2d 466; North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162; Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747). Contrary to Mateo's contention, those provisions do not violate the N.Y. Constitution (see generally, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022). Indeed, they provide a defendant charged with a capital crime with an opportunity to plead guilty.

We have reviewed respondents' remaining contentions and...