People v. Hamilton
115 A.D.3d 12
N.Y. App. Div.2014Background
- Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder in 1993 based on witness testimony from the victim’s girlfriend; alibi witnesses Dixon and Turner/Mahan were not permitted due to pretrial alibi notice rules; Smith recanted trial testimony claiming police pressure, prompting CPL 440.10 motions over many years; court denied expansion of hearings and later rejected actual innocence claims; defendant argued for freestanding actual innocence and ineffective assistance of trial counsel; he was released on parole in 2011 but seeks relief under CPL 440.10 (1) (h) and related theories; this appeal raises whether freestanding actual innocence is cognizable and merits a hearing; the court ultimately remands for a hearing on actual innocence and potential ineffective assistance of counsel; various prior rulings under CPL 440.10 were consolidated in the record
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether freestanding actual innocence is cognizable under CPL 440.10 (1) (h) | Hamilton asserts freestanding actual innocence exists and warrants relief | People contend procedural bars and lack of cognizable freestanding claim | Yes; freestanding actual innocence cognizable under CPL 440.10 (1) (h) and merits a hearing |
| What standard of proof applies to actual innocence at a hearing | Clear and convincing evidence required to prove actual innocence | Preponderance standard should apply (or procedural bars apply) | Clear and convincing evidence required to establish actual innocence for relief |
| Application of CPL 440.10 (3) discretionary bars to an actual innocence claim | Discretion allows consideration of credible actual innocence despite prior bars | Bars should foreclose relief absent meritorious showing | Discretionary bars may be overcome in the interest of justice where the claim is meritorious |
| Whether Dixon and Watson affidavits constitute newly discovered evidence under Salemi | Dixon/Watson affidavits support actual innocence and should be considered | Affidavits fail Salemi criteria and were not properly before the court | Not properly before the court; even absent, they do not satisfy Salemi criteria |
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to list Turner and Mahan in alibi notice constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s failure was ineffective and prejudicial | Issue should have been raised earlier; procedural bars apply | Remanded for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel in the interest of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (U.S. 2013) (actual innocence as gateway to review under federal habeas corpus)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (actual innocence standard for gateway review)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (fundamental miscarriage of justice exception)
- Tankleff v., 49 A.D.3d 160 (2d Dept. 2007) (discussed as precedent on postconviction relief and credibility)
- People v Deacon, 96 A.D.3d 965 (2d Dept. 2012) (recognition of freestanding actual innocence claim in NY Court of Appeals context)
- People v Jenkins, 84 A.D.3d 1403 (2d Dept. 2011) (addressed procedural bars in CPL 440.10 proceedings)
- In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952 (U.S. 2009) (due process considerations in disclosure and review)
- People v Tankleff, 49 A.D.3d 160 (2d Dept. 2007) (precedent on postconviction claims and innocence)