| People v Hill |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 03810 [172 AD3d 1095] |
| May 15, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Isaiah Hill, Appellant. |
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Brian R. Pouliot and WilliamC. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Barry E.Warhit, J.), rendered April 7, 2015, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the defendant's plea of guilty is vacated,and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings.
The defendant was charged under indictment No. 13-00668 with murder in the seconddegree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of aweapon in the third degree. The defendant was later charged under indictment No. 14-00627 withassault in the second degree and assault in the third degree. Following a pretrial hearing onindictment No. 13-00668, the defendant's counsel (hereinafter the attorney), who represented thedefendant on the charges under both indictment Nos. 13-00668 and 14-00627, learned that hehad a conflict of interest with the defendant, as the attorney's law office also represented, onunrelated charges, the prosecution's principal witness in the case under indictment No. 13-00668.The witness was to testify that he saw the defendant shoot and kill the unarmed victim. TheCounty Court granted the attorney's motion to be relieved as defense counsel in the case underindictment No. 13-00668. However, the attorney remained as the defendant's counsel on thecharges under indictment No. 14-00627.
The defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to certain charges on both indictments in exchangefor a reduced sentence.
The defendant contends that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counselbecause of a conflict of interest involving his defense. We agree. The defendant was denied hisright to effective assistance of counsel when the attorney, who had been relieved as thedefendant's counsel on indictment No. 13-00668 because of a conflict of interest with theprosecution's principal witness, made a plea offer with respect to that indictment (see People v Solomon, 20 NY3d91, 96 [2012]). The defendant failed to receive representation that was conflict-free andsinglemindedly devoted to his best interests as required by both the Constitution of the UnitedStates and the New York State Constitution (see US Const 6th Amend; NY Const, art I,§ 6; People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 209 [2002]). Accordingly, we reversethe judgment under indictment No. 13-00668, vacate the plea of guilty, and remit the matter tothe County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings.
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions.Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Roman and Duffy, JJ., concur.