People v. Diggins

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Diggins

990 N.E.2d 129, 21 N.Y.3d 935

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 30, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 990 N.E.2d 129 (People v. Diggins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Diggins, 990 N.E.2d 129, 21 N.Y.3d 935 (N.Y. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence granted and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment.

It is well established that a defendant may not, by his absence alone, “waive his right to effective assistance of counsel” (People v Aiken, 45 NY2d 394, 398 [1978]). Although a defendant’s willful absence from trial surely hampers an attorney’s ability to represent the client adequately and must be taken into consideration, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that counsel’s lack of participation during the jury trial amounted to the ineffective assistance of counsel. On this record, including defendant’s cooperation with his attorney in formulating a defense before absconding, there was a “reasonable basis for an active defense” (United States v Sanchez, 790 F2d 245, 254 [2d Cir 1986]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Pigott and Rivera concur; Judges Read and Smith dissent and vote to affirm, concluding that defendant’s trial counsel pursued a protest [937]*937strategy (see People v Diggins, 11 NY3d 518, 525 [2008]). Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.

Order reversed, defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence granted, and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings on the indictment, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence granted and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment.

It is well established that a defendant may not, by his absence alone, “waive his right to effective assistance of counsel” (People v Aiken, 45 NY2d 394, 398 [1978]). Although a defendant’s willful absence from trial surely hampers an attorney’s ability to represent the client adequately and must be taken into consideration, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that counsel’s lack of participation during the jury trial amounted to the ineffective assistance of counsel. On this record, including defendant’s cooperation with his attorney in formulating a defense before absconding, there was a “reasonable basis for an active defense” (United States v Sanchez, 790 F2d 245, 254 [2d Cir 1986]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Pigott and Rivera concur; Judges Read and Smith dissent and vote to affirm, concluding that defendant’s trial counsel pursued a protest [937]*937strategy (see People v Diggins, 11 NY3d 518, 525 [2008]). Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.

Order reversed, defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence granted, and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings on the indictment, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

990 N.E.2d 129, 21 N.Y.3d 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-diggins-ny-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack