People v. Tiger
149 A.D.3d 86
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- In Nov. 2011 a profoundly disabled child developed erythema and bullae after a bath; later received debridement and skin grafting. The home-care LPN, Tiger, was the last caregiver to bathe the child that day.
- Tiger gave statements and wrote an apology indicating she believed the bathwater had been too hot and that she had burned the child; she was later indicted on multiple counts and pled guilty to first‑degree endangering (recklessly causing serious physical injury).
- Tiger was sentenced and did not timely appeal. Almost two years later she moved under CPL 440.10 seeking vacatur, primarily claiming actual innocence (arguing the injuries were due to toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN)/Stevens‑Johnson syndrome from medication) and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to obtain the biopsy/pathology report and consult experts.
- Supporting materials included Tiger’s affidavit, an infectious‑disease physician’s opinion (Farber) concluding the biopsy and clinical course were consistent with TEN not scalding, and later civil‑trial developments (a jury found no proximate causation in the related tort trial).
- The People relied on treating burn specialists’ diagnoses (scalding) and Tiger’s prior statements admitting error; the County Court denied the CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing.
- The Second Department reversed and remitted for a hearing, holding (1) a guilty plea does not absolutely bar a freestanding actual‑innocence claim under CPL 440.10(1)(h), and (2) Tiger made a prima facie showing warranting a hearing on both actual innocence (clear and convincing standard) and ineffective assistance (preponderance standard at hearing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Tiger) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant who pled guilty can pursue a freestanding actual‑innocence claim under CPL 440.10(1)(h) | Plea bars claim; post‑plea actual innocence is not available where plea is voluntary | A guilty plea should not absolutely bar a claim of actual innocence; constitutional concerns permit review | A guilty plea does not absolutely bar a freestanding actual‑innocence claim; relief available under CPL 440.10(1)(h) in rare cases |
| Whether Tiger made a prima facie showing of actual innocence sufficient for a hearing | Evidence is at best newly discovered or cumulative; plea admissions and treating physicians’ opinions support guilt | Submitted expert affidavit, biopsy path report, and civil jury result create sufficient possible merit to warrant a hearing | Court found Tiger made a prima facie showing and remanded for a hearing to adjudicate actual innocence under clear and convincing standard |
| Whether Tiger’s counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to obtain pathology and consult experts before plea | Counsel negotiated an advantageous plea; failure to hire an expert or obtain records not necessarily ineffective, given financial limitations | Counsel failed to obtain a key biopsy report and did not seek court‑appointed or funded expert despite Tiger’s assertions, which could have affected the plea decision | Remanded for a hearing on ineffective assistance (preponderance standard at hearing) because performance might have affected plea outcome |
| Standard and remedy if actual innocence proved post‑hearing | (People) Even if some evidence favors defendant, conflict of expert opinions and plea admissions preclude vacatur | If actual innocence proved by clear and convincing evidence, indictment should be dismissed under CPL 440.10(4) without need for new jury | Court: If defendant proves actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, indictment should be dismissed; ineffective assistance remedy may be vacatur or new proceedings as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d 12 (2d Dep’t 2014) (recognizes cognizable freestanding actual‑innocence claim under CPL 440.10(1)(h) and sets clear‑and‑convincing standard)
- People v. Plunkett, 19 N.Y.3d 400 (2012) (discusses forfeiture doctrine and when pleas do not bar appellate review)
- People v. Caldavado, 26 N.Y.3d 1034 (2015) (declined to decide viability of freestanding actual‑innocence claim but assessed merits where raised)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (standard for gateway actual‑innocence claims permitting federal habeas review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (governs ineffective‑assistance analysis: reasonable‑effort standard and prejudice inquiry)