NY appeals court orders hearing in gun case

A state appeals court has ordered a hearing to address claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a gun case.

Defendant Demetris Coleman was convicted in February 2023 after a bench trial before state Supreme Court Justice Alex R. Renzi of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, and seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance.

In one appeal, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, affirmed the convictions.

In a separate appeal, Coleman challenged Renzi’s denial, without a hearing, of a motion under CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.

The Fourth Department unanimously reversed Renzi’s denial of the motion and ordered a hearing on the matter.

Coleman’s conviction stems from a traffic stop where a gun and oxycodone pills were found in a rental car that he was driving.

In the first appeal, Coleman raised the issue of whether he consented to a search of the vehicle, but that argument was raised for the first time on appeal and therefore not preserved for appellate review.

Also, Coleman’s contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary was not preserved for appellate review.

“We decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s unpreserved contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice,” the Fourth Department panel wrote.

“Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his right to be present at a material stage of trial when defense counsel attempted to negotiate an adjournment was not raised in the CPL 440.10 motion and, thus, is not properly before us,” the court ruled.

But Coleman’s contention that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was properly raised in the CPL 440.10 motion, the court wrote.

“And we agree with defendant that the court should not have denied the motion without a hearing,” the panel wrote.

The court ruled that Coleman established that there were sufficient questions of fact, including whether Coleman’s trial attorney failed to prepare for the hearing on the motion to suppress physical evidence, failed to establish facts or make arguments in support of that motion, failed to communicate with Coleman about strategy, failed to prepare for trial, pressured Coleman to waive his right to a jury trial, and failed to present a sufficient defense in the bench trial, according to the decision.

The court ruled that Coleman is “entitled to an opportunity to establish that he was deprived of meaningful legal representation” including whether his attorney improperly pressured him to waive his right to a jury trial.

“We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing,” the panel wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035