People of the State of New York v. Anonymous
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal procedure — ineffective assistance of counsel; right to counsel during cooperation proffer sessions.
The Supreme Court (New York County) denied defendant’s motion to vacate the conviction under New York Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.10 [post-judgment motion to vacate a judgment of conviction on specified grounds] and his motion to set aside the sentence under CPL 440.20 [post-judgment motion to set aside an illegal sentence], finding he failed to prove ineffective assistance regarding counsel’s mid-session absence from a proffer.
The order insofar as it denied the CPL 440.10 motion was reversed; the judgment of conviction was vacated and the case remanded. The appeals from the CPL 440.20 denial and from the judgment were dismissed as academic.
Counsel left a critical stage (the proffer) without an express waiver and without a sound strategic reason, depriving defendant of meaningful representation (see People v Johnson, 24 NY3d 639; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708). Prejudice was shown because defendant’s inculpatory proffer statement was used to impeach him at trial (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143).
Background
Defendant was convicted after a nonjury trial of three counts of burglary in the second degree and sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender (PVFO) to concurrent terms of 16 years to life. During a cooperation proffer session, defense counsel left midway through without an express waiver from defendant. While counsel was absent, defendant made statements implicating himself in the charged burglaries. At trial, the prosecution successfully used those statements to impeach defendant. Post-conviction, defendant moved under CPL 440.10 [post-judgment motion to vacate a judgment of conviction on specified grounds] to vacate the judgment for ineffective assistance and under CPL 440.20 [post-judgment motion to set aside an illegal sentence] to set aside the sentence.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County (Merchan, J.), denied both the CPL 440.10 and 440.20 motions, concluding defendant failed to meet his burden to show ineffective assistance based on counsel’s mid-proffer absence and allowing the conviction and sentence to stand.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that counsel’s departure from the proffer session—absent an express waiver and any sound strategic reason—deprived defendant of meaningful representation at a critical stage (see People v Johnson; People v Benevento). The court further found prejudice because defendant’s proffer statement was used to impeach him at trial (see People v Caban). It reversed the order to the extent it denied relief under CPL 440.10, vacated the judgment of conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. The appeals from the denial of CPL 440.20 relief and from the judgment were dismissed as academic.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a cooperation proffer is a critical stage at which counsel must be present unless the defendant expressly waives that right. Counsel’s unjustified absence can constitute ineffective assistance requiring vacatur when the defendant is prejudiced, such as where proffer statements are later used against the defendant.
Defense counsel must attend the entirety of a client’s proffer session unless the client expressly waives counsel’s presence; leaving mid-session without a strategic basis can be ineffective assistance warranting vacatur when prejudice results.