State v. Davis

13 N.Y.3d 17 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A police officer had observed D in Brooklyn's Betsy Head Park at 2:06 A.M., on December 15, 2005, despite the fact that a park sign stated a closing time of 9:00 P.M. This was a violation of Parks Department rule 1-03 (c)(2) and was punishable as a class B misdemeanor. The maximum penalty for which is 90 days' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. On February 16, 2006, D--represented by counsel--was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Contained in D's Criminal Court file is a form entitled 'CONSENT TO ADJUDICATION BEFORE A JUDICIAL HEARING OFFICER (JHO).' Although the form explained that defendant's case was being referred to a JHO for 'trial and/or final disposition and sentence,' it explicitly stated that D had 'the right to adjudicate this case before a Criminal Court judge.' The form listed the scope of the JHO's authority as derived from CPL 350.20. Thus, it stated that the JHO will determine all questions of law; act as the exclusive trier of all issues of fact; render a verdict, and impose a sentence if required. The JHO had the same powers as a Criminal Court judge and any action taken by the JHO shall be deemed the action of the Criminal Court.' D would have the right to seek an appeal in the same manner as he would had it been tried by a Criminal Court judge. Above the signature line, the form clarified that by signing this form, D would consent to having his case adjudicated before a JHO. D signed the JHO consent form. The JHO tried D who was represented by counsel and convicted and sentenced D to a $75 fine or 10 days in jail. Approximately nine months later, D was resentenced to time served. The Appellate Term affirmed in that D had given a valid consent to JHO adjudication that was supported by his counsel's participation--without objection--in D's trial before a JHO. D appealed.