New York Law Journal: Legal Aid Fights Stay of Ruling Overturning Bronx Merger
03.04.10
By Daniel Wise
The Legal Aid Society insisted yesterday that the court system lacks legal authority to seek a stay of a decision that the Office of Court Administration argues could jeopardize hundreds of thousands of criminal convictions in the Bronx.
The OCA raised the spectre of the courts being "inundate[d]" by more that 147,000 motions to vacate misdemeanor convictions since 2004 and of 17,000 orders of protection thrown into doubt by the Appellate Division, First Department, decision in People v. Correa, 5209 (NYLJ, Feb. 24), which invalidated the merger of the Bronx criminal courts.
Last Thursday, Justice Rolando T. Acosta (See Profile), who was the only dissenter on the original five-judge panel, granted the Bronx District Attorney's Office leave to take the case to the Court of Appeals, and temporarily stayed the decision until yesterday. OCA, which plans to intervene in the Court of Appeals case, asked that the stay be extended, a request that will be decided by the full five-judge panel.
Justices Richard T. Andrias (See Profile), Eugene Nardelli (See Profile), James M. Catterson (See Profile) and Leland G. DeGrasse (See Profile) formed the majority in the unsigned opinion. The panel did not rule on the extension yesterday.
Legal Aid, in a brief filed yesterday, contended that there is "absolutely no authority" to grant a stay to anyone other than the defendant who is appealing a criminal conviction.
"Despite OCA's attempt to recharacterize this case, the plain truth is this case has been, is and continues to be a criminal case," wrote Harold Ferguson, who represents Edgar Correa, who pleaded guilty in 2005 to a violation, second-degree harassment, and was sentenced to 15 days in jail.
The First Department ruled in Correa that neither the state Constitution nor the Criminal Procedure Law gave OCA the authority to transfer the handling of misdemeanor and violation cases from the Criminal Court to a new Criminal Division of the Supreme Court in Bronx County. Before the merger, the Supreme Court handled only felony cases.
The court system argued in a brief filed Monday that a stay is vital because the ruling has thrown into doubt the validity of "untold numbers" of convictions and "unsettles the underlying legal authority of drug and integrated domestic violence parts throughout the state."
Yesterday, it added statistical information in a supplemental affidavit by Paul McDonnell, OCA deputy counsel.
Mr. Ferguson of Legal Aid argued in his brief that the court system faces a major hurdle in its request for a stay because the First Department's ruling, whatever its precedential implications, involved a single criminal defendant.
He said the Criminal Procedure Law provides no authority on which the prosecution, and by implication OCA, can ask for a stay pending appeal in a criminal case. OCA has been participating as an amicus curiae in the case.
'Broad Equitable Powers'
OCA acknowledged in its brief Monday that there is "no explicit statutory authority" for the stay it was seeking. Instead, Mr. McDonnell argued that the effect of overturning Mr. Correa's plea because of the jurisdictional defect is "the functional equivalent of a writ of prohibition against the unified court system."
Despite the lack of express authority, he wrote, the court should look to the Legislature's "unequivocal intent" to stay orders in the nature of writs of prohibition, expressed in the automatic stay provision of Article 78 of CPLR §5519(a)(1).
Accordingly, he wrote, a court "has broad equitable powers" to fashion an appropriate remedy for a "gap" in the legislative scheme, which does not provide a remedy when a decision involving the validity of an individual conviction has sweeping ramifications for the operation of the entire court system
Mr. Ferguson countered that the Legislature had already examined the "gap" and had not provided a remedy that would be applicable to Correa.
Until 1990 prosecutors could not obtain a stay in any criminal case on appeal, Mr. Ferguson wrote. When the Legislature amended the Criminal Procedure Law that year it authorized prosecutors to obtain an automatic stay, pending appeal to the appellate division, in limited circumstances, such as where an indictment is dismissed. None of those circumstances are applicable in Correa, he said.
Harm to Defendants
Mr. McDonnell's affidavit presented data compiled by court system researchers showing convictions and orders issued since 2004 by the merged court, which without a stay would be subject to attack under Correa.
According to data contained in the affidavit, there have been 147,762 misdemeanor convictions entered in the merged court. More than 99 percent are subject to attack under Correa, Mr. McDonnell wrote.
Similarly, he reported, the court had issued 12,820 final orders of protection and another 4,180 temporary orders of protection are outstanding in pending misdemeanor cases. Those orders are likewise vulnerable under Correa,
There are also 71 orders of protection that have been issued by Supreme Court justices who have presided over misdemeanor cases in Integrated Domestic Violence Parts. Those likewise could be vacated, Mr. McDonnell wrote.
But Mr. Ferguson depicted the harm that would befall defendants whose convictions would remain standing if a stay is issued.
"Some may be deported on the basis of these convictions without their appeals being heard," he wrote. He reported that the First Department had put on hold the appeals of about 15 of Legal Aid's clients who are appealing misdemeanor convictions.
Others have had their job prospects adversely affected by their convictions, or could face upgraded charges if they are rearrested on felonies, he wrote.
By Daniel Wise
The Legal Aid Society insisted yesterday that the court system lacks legal authority to seek a stay of a decision that the Office of Court Administration argues could jeopardize hundreds of thousands of criminal convictions in the Bronx.
The OCA raised the spectre of the courts being "inundate[d]" by more that 147,000 motions to vacate misdemeanor convictions since 2004 and of 17,000 orders of protection thrown into doubt by the Appellate Division, First Department, decision in People v. Correa, 5209 (NYLJ, Feb. 24), which invalidated the merger of the Bronx criminal courts.
Last Thursday, Justice Rolando T. Acosta (See Profile), who was the only dissenter on the original five-judge panel, granted the Bronx District Attorney's Office leave to take the case to the Court of Appeals, and temporarily stayed the decision until yesterday. OCA, which plans to intervene in the Court of Appeals case, asked that the stay be extended, a request that will be decided by the full five-judge panel.
Justices Richard T. Andrias (See Profile), Eugene Nardelli (See Profile), James M. Catterson (See Profile) and Leland G. DeGrasse (See Profile) formed the majority in the unsigned opinion. The panel did not rule on the extension yesterday.
Legal Aid, in a brief filed yesterday, contended that there is "absolutely no authority" to grant a stay to anyone other than the defendant who is appealing a criminal conviction.
"Despite OCA's attempt to recharacterize this case, the plain truth is this case has been, is and continues to be a criminal case," wrote Harold Ferguson, who represents Edgar Correa, who pleaded guilty in 2005 to a violation, second-degree harassment, and was sentenced to 15 days in jail.
The First Department ruled in Correa that neither the state Constitution nor the Criminal Procedure Law gave OCA the authority to transfer the handling of misdemeanor and violation cases from the Criminal Court to a new Criminal Division of the Supreme Court in Bronx County. Before the merger, the Supreme Court handled only felony cases.
The court system argued in a brief filed Monday that a stay is vital because the ruling has thrown into doubt the validity of "untold numbers" of convictions and "unsettles the underlying legal authority of drug and integrated domestic violence parts throughout the state."
Yesterday, it added statistical information in a supplemental affidavit by Paul McDonnell, OCA deputy counsel.
Mr. Ferguson of Legal Aid argued in his brief that the court system faces a major hurdle in its request for a stay because the First Department's ruling, whatever its precedential implications, involved a single criminal defendant.
He said the Criminal Procedure Law provides no authority on which the prosecution, and by implication OCA, can ask for a stay pending appeal in a criminal case. OCA has been participating as an amicus curiae in the case.
'Broad Equitable Powers'
OCA acknowledged in its brief Monday that there is "no explicit statutory authority" for the stay it was seeking. Instead, Mr. McDonnell argued that the effect of overturning Mr. Correa's plea because of the jurisdictional defect is "the functional equivalent of a writ of prohibition against the unified court system."
Despite the lack of express authority, he wrote, the court should look to the Legislature's "unequivocal intent" to stay orders in the nature of writs of prohibition, expressed in the automatic stay provision of Article 78 of CPLR §5519(a)(1).
Accordingly, he wrote, a court "has broad equitable powers" to fashion an appropriate remedy for a "gap" in the legislative scheme, which does not provide a remedy when a decision involving the validity of an individual conviction has sweeping ramifications for the operation of the entire court system
Mr. Ferguson countered that the Legislature had already examined the "gap" and had not provided a remedy that would be applicable to Correa.
Until 1990 prosecutors could not obtain a stay in any criminal case on appeal, Mr. Ferguson wrote. When the Legislature amended the Criminal Procedure Law that year it authorized prosecutors to obtain an automatic stay, pending appeal to the appellate division, in limited circumstances, such as where an indictment is dismissed. None of those circumstances are applicable in Correa, he said.
Harm to Defendants
Mr. McDonnell's affidavit presented data compiled by court system researchers showing convictions and orders issued since 2004 by the merged court, which without a stay would be subject to attack under Correa.
According to data contained in the affidavit, there have been 147,762 misdemeanor convictions entered in the merged court. More than 99 percent are subject to attack under Correa, Mr. McDonnell wrote.
Similarly, he reported, the court had issued 12,820 final orders of protection and another 4,180 temporary orders of protection are outstanding in pending misdemeanor cases. Those orders are likewise vulnerable under Correa,
There are also 71 orders of protection that have been issued by Supreme Court justices who have presided over misdemeanor cases in Integrated Domestic Violence Parts. Those likewise could be vacated, Mr. McDonnell wrote.
But Mr. Ferguson depicted the harm that would befall defendants whose convictions would remain standing if a stay is issued.
"Some may be deported on the basis of these convictions without their appeals being heard," he wrote. He reported that the First Department had put on hold the appeals of about 15 of Legal Aid's clients who are appealing misdemeanor convictions.
Others have had their job prospects adversely affected by their convictions, or could face upgraded charges if they are rearrested on felonies, he wrote.
The PRBA thanks its top sponsors >>
