Conviction overturned on Brady issue

Listen to this article

A Clinton County judge has vacated a guilty plea in a robbery case because of Brady violations by the prosecution.

In May 2017, defendant Rudolph Franklin was indicted on charges of second-degree robbery, second-degree criminal use of a firearm, and fourth-degree grand larceny.

Franklin, and another man, Eric B. Schulz, were accused of using a handgun while robbing a convenience store in Plattsburgh on Dec. 11, 2016.

Franklin was arrested on Dec. 14, 2016, and the prosecutor filed a notice that Schulz was expected to testify that Franklin and he committed the robbery together.

Franklin pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery, second-degree criminal use of a firearm, and petit larceny in satisfaction of all the charges.

He was sentenced to 14 years in state prison, followed by five years of post-release supervision.

In February, Franklin’s appellate attorney, Noreen McCarthy, filed a motion to vacate the conviction because of Brady violations.

“Mr. Schulz is the only witness specified to date by the People who can positively identify (Franklin) as being one of the perpetrators of the robbery,” according to a decision released Tuesday by Acting Clinton County Court Judge Timothy J. Lawliss.

McCarthy argued in the appeal that the prosecutor failed to disclose three things to Franklin before the plea:

• Schulz wrote a note to the DA saying he did not want to cooperate with the prosecution.
• On April 4, 2017, on the record in the courtroom Schulz said: “Any and all statements I made were false.”
• On May 23, 2017, Schulz said on the record in the courtroom that he acted alone in committing the robbery and that Franklin was not involved.

Schulz wrote in an affidavit filed with Franklin’s appeal that he gave his trial attorney the note to give to the DA’s office, but the appeal did not include any sworn statement from the attorney confirming that that note was delivered.

“Thus, defendant failed to provide any proof from any individual who had firsthand knowledge that Mr. Schulz’s letter was actually delivered to the District Attorney’s Office,” Lawliss wrote.

Lawliss ruled that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary on the issue of the note from Franklin to the DA because the two other claims in the appeal are undisputed.

“It is undisputed that on April 4, 2017 Mr. Schulz stated in the open courtroom in the presence of an Assistant District Attorney that ‘any and all statements I made were false.’ It is undisputed that the People did not disclose Mr. Schulz’s statement to defendant prior to defendant’s guilty plea,” Lawliss wrote.

“It is undisputed that on May 23, 2017 Mr. Schulz stated in the open courtroom in the presence of an Assistant District Attorney, that he acted alone when committing the robbery and that Defendant was not involved,” Lawliss wrote.

The judge asked Schulz: “Was Rudy Franklin also involved in the robbery?”

Schulz replied: “No, your honor.”

The prosecutor told the judge that the statement was “inconsistent with the evidence offered to the grand jury and the defendant’s statement under oath at the police department in the presence of his lawyer.”

“It is undisputed that the People did not disclose Mr. Schulz’s statement to defendant prior to defendant’s guilty plea,” Lawliss wrote.

Lawliss ruled that the conviction “was obtained in violation of his rights under the New York State and United States Constitutions, and accordingly, the judgment must be vacated.”

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035