COOPERWOOD, DEMETRIUS, PEOPLE v ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    946
    KA 11-02059
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    DEMETRIUS COOPERWOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    WILLIAM H. GARDNER, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW B. POWERS OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of
    the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of
    the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), dated September 6,
    2011. The order denied the CPL 440.10 motion of defendant.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Erie
    County Court for a hearing on the motion in accordance with the
    following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order summarily
    denying his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 seeking to vacate the
    judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of
    robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). According to
    defendant, defense counsel failed to advise him of the need for
    corroboration of a codefendant’s testimony or a potentially viable
    affirmative defense related to the operability of the firearms used in
    the robberies (see generally CPL 60.22; Penal Law § 160.15 [4]).
    Defendant contended that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known
    of those legal issues (see People v Liggins, 56 AD3d 1265, 1265-1266).
    Here, as in Liggins, “[d]efendant further contended in support of his
    motion that the goal of defense counsel from the outset of the
    prosecution was to dispose of the charges by way of a plea of guilty,
    and that defense counsel consequently failed to pursue . . . viable
    [legal] challenge[s]” to the evidence against defendant (id. at 1266).
    We thus conclude that defendant raised issues of fact in support of
    his motion and that County Court erred in denying his motion without
    conducting a hearing. We therefore reverse the order and remit the
    matter to County Court for a hearing on defendant’s motion consistent
    with our decision.
    Entered:   September 28, 2012                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 11-02059

Filed Date: 9/28/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016