STATE OF NEW YORK v. CARTER, JAMES R. ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1141
    CA 11-02087
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
    IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
    PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
    V                             MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    JAMES R. CARTER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    JOHN E. TYO, SHORTSVILLE, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (LAURA ETLINGER OF
    COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Livingston County
    (Robert B. Wiggins, A.J.), entered March 30, 2011 in a proceeding
    pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, among other
    things, granted the motion of petitioner for a change of venue.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion and vacating the
    first and second ordering paragraphs and as modified the order is
    affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order granting
    petitioner’s motion for a change of venue from Livingston County to
    Broome County in this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding. In
    support of its motion, petitioner provided the affirmation of its
    attorney stating that numerous victims and law enforcement witnesses
    would be “greatly inconvenienced” if required to travel from Broome
    County to Livingston County. Petitioner also argued in support of the
    motion that the underlying crimes, which were committed more than 20
    years before the petition was filed, were committed in Broome County
    and that respondent had the greatest ties to that county. In
    opposition, respondent’s attorney asserted in an affirmation that
    petitioner failed to establish good cause for a change of venue, as
    required by Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (e), because the underlying
    crimes are “deemed established and shall not be relitigated” in an
    article 10 proceeding and thus the convenience of victims and law
    enforcement witnesses does not constitute good cause for a change of
    venue (§ 10.07 [c]; see § 10.08 [e]). Respondent’s attorney further
    asserted that respondent had lived outside of New York State his
    entire life before relocating to Broome County with a codefendant and
    had no ties to that county. In reply, petitioner provided the
    redacted affidavits of two victims and the affidavit of a police
    witness stating that they had been advised that they may be subpoenaed
    -2-                          1141
    CA 11-02087
    to testify and that it would be inconvenient to travel to Livingston
    County. Supreme Court granted the motion, determining that the
    testimony of the proposed witnesses, “if necessary, may be an integral
    part of the hearing.”
    We conclude that petitioner failed to establish good cause for a
    change of venue (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [e]). Although the
    convenience of witnesses may constitute good cause (see id.), here
    petitioner failed to “set forth specific facts sufficient to
    demonstrate a sound basis for the transfer” (Matter of State of New
    York v Williams, 92 AD3d 1271, 1271-1272; see Matter of State of New
    York v Zimmer [appeal No. 2], 63 AD3d 1562, 1562-1563). Instead,
    petitioner’s attorney stated that the victims and law enforcement
    witnesses “may” be called, “if necessary,” and further stated in a
    conclusory manner that respondent had the greatest ties to Broome
    County (see Zimmer, 63 AD3d at 1563).
    Respondent further contends that he was denied effective
    assistance of counsel because, in opposition to the motion, his
    attorney failed to identify respondent’s proposed witnesses and the
    nature of the expected testimony. We reject that contention. We note
    that because respondent is subject to civil confinement, the standard
    for determining whether effective assistance of counsel was provided
    in criminal matters is applicable here (see Matter of State of New
    York v Campany, 77 AD3d 92, 98, lv denied 15 NY3d 713). Nevertheless,
    respondent failed to “demonstrate the absence of strategic or other
    legitimate explanations” for his attorney’s alleged deficiency (People
    v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 154), and we conclude that his attorney provided
    meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,
    147).
    Entered:   November 9, 2012                     Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 11-02087

Filed Date: 11/9/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016