NY High Court Declines to Expand Scope of Jury Trial Right for Immigrants in New York City
Udeke had agreed to plead the charges down to a class B misdemeanor, which comes with different trial rights in New York City than higher-level charges.
December 19, 2019 at 12:46 PM
6 minute read
The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday decided against expanding the right to jury trial for immigrants facing low-level charges that could result in their deportation.
The decision applies in cases in New York City courts.
The high court did not expand the scope of a 2018 decision finding a right to jury trial for immigrants facing misdemeanor charges that could expose them to possible deportation.
The Court of Appeals in a two-page decision ruled that a guilty plea entered by an immigrant in Manhattan could stand because it was made as part of a deal with prosecutors.
"The record as a whole demonstrates defendant's knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights and there is no basis to disturb his guilty plea," the court wrote.
The immigrant, Sixtus Udeke, was initially facing class A misdemeanor charges from prosecutors for violating a temporary order of protection. Udeke was spotted entering a subway station in Manhattan with the person he was supposed to stay away from.
He agreed to plead the charges down to a class B misdemeanor, which comes with different trial rights in New York City than higher-level charges.
Under state law, defendants in New York City are allowed to be denied a trial by jury if the maximum penalty of a charge is less than six months in jail. That's the case for class B misdemeanors—the charge Udeke was pleading down to.
That's not the case in other areas of the state. Outside New York City, individuals can ask for a trial by jury for any level of crime above a violation. The limit only exists in New York City because, as court officials have said, it could place a strain on judicial proceedings.
That changed last year when the Court of Appeals handed down its decision in People v. Suazo, which essentially provided a loophole in the law for immigrants.
Saylor Suazo, the defendant in that case, had challenged the state's law denying him the right to a jury trial when he was charged with a class B misdemeanor. He had argued that, if he was convicted, he could be eligible for deportation—a penalty stronger than six months in jail.
The Court of Appeals agreed. It ruled that the severity of deportation allowed immigrants the right to a jury trial in New York City under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, even on class B misdemeanors. It was the first time the high court had weighed the issue.
The Suazo decision, however, did not guarantee immigrants the right to a trial by jury. The Court of Appeals ruled that such a right would only exist if the immigrant could show a conviction may result in their deportation. The burden is on the immigrant to show as much.
Udeke's case was decided about three years before the decision in Suazo, but his attorney argued before the Court of Appeals that he, too, should have had the right to a jury trial. He was represented by Ben Wiener from the Center for Appellate Litigation.
Wiener declined to comment on the decision from the Court of Appeals on Thursday.
Udeke's case differed from Suazo in that he pleaded guilty to a class B misdemeanor as part of a deal with prosecutors. Suazo was convicted on that level of crime during a bench trial.
In Suazo's case, prosecutors in the Bronx had reduced the charges against him to a class B misdemeanor, which meant, at the time, he wouldn't receive a jury trial. In Udeke's case, the Court of Appeals wrote, he had agreed to the class B misdemeanor as part of a plea deal.
"Defendant pleaded guilty to a class B misdemeanor in satisfaction of two accusatory instruments charging him with class A misdemeanors," the court wrote. "The class A misdemeanor counts in the instruments were not amended to lesser offenses as was done in People v Suazo."
At issue in the case was a conversation between Udeke and New York City Criminal Court Judge Laurie Peterson.
Before Udeke accepted the plea, Peterson had explained to him the rights he was giving up through the agreement with prosecutors. When she told him he was waiving his right to a trial by jury, Udeke asked for clarification.
"By jury?" Udeke asked, according to the record.
He was confused because, as part of the plea deal, his charge had been reduced to a class B misdemeanor. At the time, that meant he wouldn't be eligible for a jury trial. Peterson clarified that Udeke's right to a jury trial would have depended on how the case played out.
"A trial by a jury or a judge, depending on how the People proceeded," Peterson responded. Udeke said he understood the terms of the deal.
Wiener, Udeke's attorney, had argued before the Court of Appeals last month that, in light of Suazo, Peterson had misrepresented his rights. Because of the finding in Suazo, he had argued, Udeke should have been told he could seek a jury trial, regardless of the charge.
That same view was held by Associate Judge Jenny Rivera of the Court of Appeals. She wrote in a dissenting opinion Thursday that Udeke was misinformed by Peterson of his right to a jury trial, even though his case was decided years before Suazo.
"Since defendant would be entitled to a jury trial under our holding in Suazo, the court's statement at the colloquy that he would not be entitled to a jury trial should the People prosecute him on the reduced B misdemeanor was incorrect," Rivera wrote.
"Therefore, defendant's plea was not intelligent and voluntary because it was based on this misinformation," she continued.
Rivera was joined on the dissent by Associate Judge Rowan Wilson. Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and Associate Judges Leslie Stein, Eugene Fahey, Michael Garcia and Paul Feinman all signed onto the court's opinion, which didn't name an author.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which prosecuted Udeke, did not comment on the decision.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Standing for Plaintiffs in Copyright Suit Over AI Training of ChatGPT
- 2LA Judge Anne Hwang Confirmed to the Federal Bench
- 3NY Court Leaders Ask for 10% Judiciary Budget Increase
- 4ClaimClam Wanted to Boost Class Action Claims Rates. But Judges and Attorneys Fought Back
- 5'We Will Sue ... Immediately': AG Bonta Says He's Ready to Spend $25M Battling Trump
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250