Court Opinion

ID: 9779691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:34:49.233905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:19.585913
License: Public Domain

Jones, J. (dissenting).
Because I believe defendant’s conviction was obtained in violation of his right to counsel, I respectfully dissent.
Defendant was questioned on two occasions concerning a homicide which occurred in 2002. He was first questioned in 2003 in the presence of his attorney. He gave a detailed statement concerning the murder.1 He was again questioned in 2006 by the same detective but without counsel being present.2 In 2007, defendant was convicted of numerous charges on a plea of guilty. His plea followed a Huntley hearing after which the court ruled that the statement made to the investigating detective in 2006 could be used against him at his trial. Based on these facts, the issue presented here is whether defendant was represented in this matter when he was first questioned in 2003. As will be demonstrated below, defendant’s plea was obtained in violation of his rights (including the right to counsel) as it was based on a statement made without his attorney being present.
*123At the outset, I agree with the majority’s statement of settled law that if defendant was represented by counsel during the initial questioning in 2003 then the subsequent interrogation in 2006 without his attorney being present was in violation of his rights (see People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 [1968]; People v West, 81 NY2d 370 [1993]). There is no dispute that defendant was represented by counsel when he was questioned on a homicide in 2003. There is, however, some dispute as to whether at the time of the first statement he was represented on the robbery to which he had already pleaded guilty, on the murder which was under investigation, or both. Relying on People v Kinchen (60 NY2d 772 [1983]), the majority concludes that the record is inadequate to establish whether this defendant was in fact represented on the homicide by attorney Steven Kouray in 2003. I disagree and would hold that the record is more than adequate to establish that attorney Kouray represented defendant on the homicide in 2003.
The record clearly demonstrates the following. Defendant was a suspect in the Goodwin homicide as early as 2002 based on information the Schenectady police received from a third party. In other words, defendant was a suspect in the Goodwin homicide five years before he was actually convicted of it. More significantly, defendant was a suspect in that homicide nearly a year before his first written statement was taken.
The record contains two documents dated October 20, 2003 which support the position that defendant was being actively represented on the homicide. The date is significant because defendant had already entered a plea of guilty on the robbery charge. In the first document, entitled “Advice of Rights,” defendant acknowledges and signs several statements on a printed form containing the Miranda warnings.3 That the police advised defendant of his rights under Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 *124[1966]) is telling. Simply put, there is no need to advise someone who is merely a witness of these rights. The fact that defendant was required to sign this form indicates he was in jeopardy and a suspect in the ongoing murder investigation.
In addition, on that date, defendant, after being advised of his rights under Miranda, agreed to be questioned concerning the murder expecting that it might be helpful to his sentence on the robbery. Defendant simultaneously signed a statement which began as follows:
“I Sam[ue]l McLean being duly sworn, deposes and says: Im in the Schenectady County District Attorneys Office with my attorney Steven Kouray. Mr Sims you have read my rights to me and I understand them and Im willing to give you this statement. Mr Sims we will be talking about what I know of a murder that happened back on January 27th of 2002.”
The record also contains the transcript of Detective Sims’ testimony at the 2006 Huntley hearing. A portion of the detective’s testimony makes reference to an exchange between the detective and defendant after the Miranda warnings were administered on October 20, 2003. During the direct examination of Detective Sims, he was asked, “After the defendant acknowledged that he understood the warnings as you read them to him from this form, what happened next?” In response, Detective Sims stated: “The Miranda warning was completed. We now discussed what he had witnessed or if he had participated in the homicide of Leonder Goodwin and we talked at length about the incident” (emphasis added).
At the Huntley hearing, Detective Sims was also asked about defendant’s interaction with his attorney (Kouray). The detective testified that they conferred, read documents together and that defendant constantly consulted with Mr. Kouray during the interview.
Accordingly, not only do the foregoing documents establish that defendant was a suspect in the Goodwin homicide, they clearly illustrate attorney Steven Kouray’s presence and that *125defendant was represented by him in the homicide investigation independent of the robbery case to which he had already entered a guilty plea. Since defendant was represented by counsel in the murder case when he gave the 2003 statements, the subsequent statement in 2006, made without counsel present, should have been suppressed (see People v Arthur, supra).
The majority, citing People v Kinchen, posits that the record before this Court is inadequate to determine whether defendant was represented on the homicide and points to the fact that “right to counsel” was never raised at the trial level. In Kinchen, the defendant gave a statement after receiving Miranda warnings which was later challenged. This Court held that although the defendant had an open warrant, there was no evidence that the police knew of the warrant before taking the statement and no evidence that the police knew if he was represented by counsel or had an open case.
Here, by contrast (and given the foregoing), the record is so detailed that it clearly contains evidence that the police knew that defendant was represented by counsel on the Goodwin homicide as the same detective was present at both interrogations. Thus, the majority’s conclusion that this record is “inadequate” on the question of legal representation is plainly inconsistent with settled case law. Stated differently, in a case where there is an adequate record on the question of legal representation (i.e., the right to counsel attached), as here, this Court’s jurisprudence provides that a claimed deprivation of said right may be raised on appeal, notwithstanding that the claim was not preserved at the suppression hearing or before the trial court.
Based on the foregoing, defendant’s conviction and sentence should be reversed and the matter remitted to County Court for further proceedings.
Judges Graffeo, Read and Pigott concur with Judge Smith; Judge Jones dissents and votes to reverse in a separate opinion in which Chief Judge Lippman and Judge Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed.

. Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery on August 5, 2003. On October 20, 2003, defendant met with the investigating detective on the Goodwin homicide (Detective Jack Sims) at the Schenectady County District Attorney’s Office, and with his attorney (Steven Kouray) present gave a written statement concerning the homicide. Defendant met with the same parties a second time on October 21, 2003. On June 4, 2004, defendant was sentenced for the stated robbery.

. Defendant, while incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, met with Detective Sims and Detective Michael Brown on December 11, 2006. At this time, he gave another written statement on the Goodwin homicide.

. The “Advice of Rights” form contained in the record states:
“Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights. • You have the right to remain silent. • Anything you say can he used against you in court. • You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions and to have him with you during any questioning. • If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish, at no charge to you.
*124• If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer. • Do you understand what I have just said to you?”