People v. Diggins, 990 N.E.2d 129 (N.Y. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Diggins, 990 N.E.2d 129 (N.Y. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Lewis, 2024 NY Slip Op 03245 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2024)
How cited ↗
Cited for
21 N.Y.3d at 936 cited at this page3 citing cases
  • People v. Lewis, 2024 NY Slip Op 03245 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2024).published
    "It is well established that a defendant may not, by . . . absence alone, 'waive [the] right to effective assistance of counsel' " ( People v Diggins , 21 NY3d 935, 936 [2013], quoting People v Aiken , 45 NY2d 394, 398 [1978]).
  • People v. Moore, 2022 NY Slip Op 05242 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).published
    Defendant waived his right to be present at the hearing but did not waive his right to challenge the Board's risk assessment and the People's proof ( see People v Diggins , 21 NY3d 935, 936 [2013]; People v VonRapacki , 204 AD3d at 44 ).
  • People v. VonRapacki, 2022 NY Slip Op 01071 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).published
    Although defendant waived his right to be present at the SORA hearing, he did not waive his right to contest the Board's risk level recommendation or the People's arguments and proof ( see People v Diggins , 21 NY3d 935, 936 [2013]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Isaac Diggins
New York Court of Appeals.
May 30, 2013.
Published opinion
990 N.E.2d 129
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Simpson Thacker & Bartlett LLP, New York City (Roy L. Reardon of counsel), and Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender (Rosemary Herbert of counsel) for appellant., Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Sheryl Feldman and Alan Gadlin of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence granted and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment.

It is well established that a defendant may not, by his absence alone, “waive his right to effective assistance of counsel” (People v Aiken, 45 NY2d 394, 398 [1978]). Although a defendant’s willful absence from trial surely hampers an attorney’s ability to represent the client adequately and must be taken into consideration, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that counsel’s lack of participation during the jury trial amounted to the ineffective assistance of counsel. On this record, including defendant’s cooperation with his attorney in formulating a defense before absconding, there was a “reasonable basis for an active defense” (United States v Sanchez, 790 F2d 245, 254 [2d Cir 1986]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Pigott and Rivera concur; Judges Read and Smith dissent and vote to affirm, concluding that defendant’s trial counsel pursued a protest[*937] strategy (see People v Diggins, 11 NY3d 518, 525 [2008]). Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.

Order reversed, defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence granted, and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings on the indictment, in a memorandum.