RELIN v. Honorable Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General of New York State, Intervenor. (1998)

The People commenced this original CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to prohibit respondent the Honorable John J. Connell from enforcing an order declaring CPL 220.10(5)(e), 220.30(3)(b)(vii) and 220.60(2)(a) unconstitutional.   We deny that part of the petition seeking a writ of prohibition (see generally, Matter of Gold v. Gartenstein, 54 N.Y.2d 627, 442 N.Y.S.2d 504, 425 N.E.2d 892;  Matter of Van Wie v. Kirk, 244 A.D.2d 13, 675 N.Y.S.2d 469 [decided herewith] ).   Because this issue is of critical importance and is likely to recur, we grant that part of the petition seeking, in the alternative, to convert the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action (see, CPLR 103[c];  Matter of Morgenthau v. Roberts, 65 N.Y.2d 749, 751, 492 N.Y.S.2d 21, 481 N.E.2d 561;  Matter of Morgenthau v. Erlbaum, 59 N.Y.2d 143, 151-152, 464 N.Y.S.2d 392, 451 N.E.2d 150, cert. denied 464 U.S. 993, 104 S.Ct. 486, 78 L.Ed.2d 682), and we grant judgment declaring those sections constitutional.

The People contend that the provisions of New York's death penalty statute governing kinds of pleas (CPL 220.10[5][e] ), those governing pleas to part of an indictment or covering other indictments (CPL 220.30[3][b][vii] ) and those governing the change of a plea (CPL 220.60[2][a] ) do not violate respondent Angel Mateo's right to a jury trial and therefore are constitutional.   We agree.   Those sections do not grant a defendant the unilateral right to plead guilty and thereby avoid the death penalty, and thus they do not “needlessly encourage[ ]” guilty pleas in violation of defendant's right to demand a jury trial (United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 583, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138;  see, Matter of Hynes v. Tomei, 237 A.D.2d 52, 666 N.Y.S.2d 687;  see also, Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212, 99 S.Ct. 492, 58 L.Ed.2d 466;  North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162;  Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747).   Contrary to Mateo's contention, those provisions do not violate the N.Y. Constitution (see generally, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022).   Indeed, they provide a defendant charged with a capital crime with an opportunity to plead guilty.

We have reviewed respondents' remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Consequently, we grant the petition in part, convert the proceeding to an action for a declaratory judgment and grant judgment in favor of petitioner declaring that CPL 220.10(5)(e), 220.30(3)(b)(vii) and 220.60(2)(a) are constitutional.

Petition unanimously granted in part without costs and judgment granted.

MEMORANDUM: