Opinion
103804.
10-16-2014
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Swain CHAPPELLE, Appellant.
George P. Ferro, Albany, for appellant. Bridget Rahilly Steller, Special Prosecutor, Poughkeepsie, for respondent.
George P. Ferro, Albany, for appellant.
Bridget Rahilly Steller, Special Prosecutor, Poughkeepsie, for respondent.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., STEIN, McCARTHY, ROSE and DEVINE, JJ.
Opinion
DEVINE, J.Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Czajka, J.), rendered October 1, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant to 3 ½ years in prison followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Following his arrest, defendant was arraigned in City Court without an attorney and remanded to jail. The next day, while still unrepresented by counsel, defendant was given written notice that the grand jury presentment was scheduled for that day and that defendant should notify the District Attorney's office “as soon as possible” if he wanted to appear before the grand jury. Defendant was indicted within hours on the felony charges and, three days later, he was assigned counsel during his arraignment by County Court. More than nine months later and following numerous court appearances, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment for failure to provide proper written notice of the right to appear before and provide evidence to the grand jury pursuant to CPL 190.50(5)(a), which motion was denied as untimely. Defendant now asserts that, because he was denied his constitutional right to counsel at the time of his arraignment by City Court and during grand jury proceedings, his guilty plea must be vacated and the indictment dismissed.
The People maintain that defendant's waiver of appeal precludes our consideration of defendant's claim that his right to counsel was violated. A trial court must ensure that a defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v. Sylvan, 107 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 968 N.Y.S.2d 628 [2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1141, 983 N.Y.S.2d 500, 6 N.E.3d 619 [2014] ; People v. Riddick, 40 A.D.3d 1259, 1259–1260, 836 N.Y.S.2d 338 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 925, 844 N.Y.S.2d 180, 875 N.E.2d 899 [2007] ). After the People informed County Court that defendant agreed to waive his right to appeal, the court asked defendant whether that contention was accurate, to which defendant replied affirmatively. Thereafter, the court questioned defendant about his understanding of the terms of the plea bargain, but failed to confirm that he fully understood that his waiver of appeal was not automatic and that it was, in fact, “separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ; see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011] ; People v. Ladieu, 105 A.D.3d 1265, 1265, 963 N.Y.S.2d 482 [2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1017, 971 N.Y.S.2d 499, 994 N.E.2d 395 [2013] ). Defendant signed a written waiver of appeal outside of court and County Court made no inquiry about “the circumstances surrounding the document's execution” or confirm that defendant had been fully advised by counsel of the document's significance (People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 283, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108 [1992] ; see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d at 265, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ). As such, the appeal waiver was invalid (see People v. Burgette, 118 A.D.3d 1034, 1035, 986 N.Y.S.2d 362 [2014] ).
On the merits of defendant's appeal, a criminal defendant's right to receive the assistance of counsel attaches at arraignment “and entails the presence of counsel at each subsequent critical stage of the proceedings” (Hurrell–Harring v. State of New York, 15 N.Y.3d 8, 20, 904 N.Y.S.2d 296, 930 N.E.2d 217 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Hilliard, 73 N.Y.2d 584, 586, 542 N.Y.S.2d 507, 540 N.E.2d 702 [1989] ). Further, whether an accused individual facing felony charges should elect to appear before and present evidence to the grand jury or, as equally relevant here, object to the timeliness or reasonableness of the notice of grand jury proceedings, raises questions necessitating consultation with legal counsel (see Hurrell–Harring v. State of New York, 15 N.Y.3d at 21, 904 N.Y.S.2d 296, 930 N.E.2d 217 ; see also People v. Chapman, 69 N.Y.2d 497, 500, 516 N.Y.S.2d 159, 508 N.E.2d 894 [1987] ; People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154, 164, 412 N.Y.S.2d 874, 385 N.E.2d 612 [1978] ; Matter of Trudeau v. Cantwell, 31 A.D.3d 844, 846, 817 N.Y.S.2d 760 [2006] ). The People correctly observe that, by pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his claim that he was denied the statutory right to testify before the grand jury (see People v. Straight, 106 A.D.3d 1190, 1191, 964 N.Y.S.2d 755 [2013] ; People v. Dennis, 223 A.D.2d 814, 815, 636 N.Y.S.2d 453 [1996], lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 972, 642 N.Y.S.2d 201, 664 N.E.2d 1264 [1996] ; People v. Lasher, 199 A.D.2d 595, 595, 605 N.Y.S.2d 973 [1993], lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 855, 612 N.Y.S.2d 386, 634 N.E.2d 987 [1994] ) or, as defendant now argues on appeal, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel where, as here, such assertion does not relate to the voluntariness of the plea or the integrity of the plea bargaining process (see People v. Mercer, 81 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 917 N.Y.S.2d 397 [2011], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 999, 951 N.Y.S.2d 475, 975 N.E.2d 921 [2012] ; People v. Heier, 73 A.D.3d 1392, 1393, 900 N.Y.S.2d 921 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 805, 908 N.Y.S.2d 165, 934 N.E.2d 899 [2010] ). Here, however, it is uncontroverted that defendant was denied the right to counsel prior to and during the grand jury proceedings, a critical stage of the instant criminal prosecution and, therefore, the forfeiture rule should not be applied (see People v. Hunt, 277 A.D.2d 911, 913, 716 N.Y.S.2d 264 [2000] ; People v. Stevens, 151 A.D.2d 704, 705, 542 N.Y.S.2d 754 [1989] ). Further, we observe that, while defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment was based solely on the denial of his right pursuant to CPL 190.50(5)(a) to testify before the grand jury, the “claimed deprivation of the [s]tate constitutional right to counsel may be raised on appeal, notwithstanding that the issue was not preserved” before County Court (People v. Kinchen, 60 N.Y.2d 772, 773, 469 N.Y.S.2d 680, 457 N.E.2d 786 [1983] ). Inasmuch as defendant was not afforded an opportunity to consult with counsel “and make an informed decision as to whether to appear before the [g]rand [j]ury” (People v. Sawyer, 274 A.D.2d 603, 606, 711 N.Y.S.2d 45 [2000], affd. 96 N.Y.2d 815, 727 N.Y.S.2d 381, 751 N.E.2d 460 [2001] ; see People v. Fields, 258 A.D.2d 593, 594, 685 N.Y.S.2d 482 [1999] ; People v. Stevens, 151 A.D.2d at 705, 542 N.Y.S.2d 754 ; People v. Lincoln, 80 A.D.2d 877, 877, 436 N.Y.S.2d 782 [1981] ; compare People v. Gainer, 73 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 901 N.Y.S.2d 426 [2010] ), the resulting deprivation of defendant's constitutional right to counsel requires the dismissal of the indictment (see People v. Hunt, 277 A.D.2d at 913, 716 N.Y.S.2d 264 ; People v. Stevens, 151 A.D.2d at 704, 542 N.Y.S.2d 754 ).
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and indictment dismissed, without prejudice to the People to re-present any appropriate charges to another grand jury.
LAHTINEN, J.P., STEIN, McCARTHY and ROSE, JJ., concur.