• Federal Appeals Court Determines Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Rights Belong To The Defendant Not The Defense Attorney: Where Client And Attorney Disagree, The Trial Court Is Bound By The Assertions Of The Defendant

    Published By Stephen Preziosi

    United States v. Tigano

    Second Circuit Court of Appeals

    Decided on January 23, 2018

    Docket No.: 15-3073

    Where a defendant and his attorney disagree on whether to waive speedy trial rights, the assertions of the defendant are controlling because speedy trial rights belong to the defendant, not his attorney.

    Click for more information on Federal Criminal Appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals or Federal Criminal Appeals in New York

    Issue: Whether the Government violated the Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial rights of the defendant where his trial was delayed by more than seven years and where defense attorney and defendant disagreed on whether to waive his speedy trial rights.

    Holding: The Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Rights of the Defendant were violated where numerous delays caused by the Court, the government and his attorney caused the delay. Most importantly, the Second Circuit established an important rule that where the defendant and his attorney disagree as to whether or not to waive speedy trial rights, the wishes of the defendant must be observed by the court because the right to a speedy trial belongs to the defendant, not to the defense attorney.

    Read More →

  • Defendant Not Entitled To Specific Performance On Sentencing Promise, Not Constitutionally Required

    Published By Stephen Preziosi

    Kernan v. Cuero

    US Supreme Court

    No. 16-1468

    Kernan v. Cuero, 2017 WL 5076049 (U.S.,2017)

    Decided November 6, 2017

     

    No Specific Performance Enforced On Sentencing Promise Made By The Prosecution

     

    Issue: Whether the California state court decision to amend a criminal complaint after a plea, leading to a higher sentence, involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. More specifically, whether the US Supreme Court’s prior decisions required the state court to impose defendant’s original lower sentence or, instead, permit the state to amend a criminal complaint after a plea where it would lead to a higher sentence.

    Holding: The Supreme Court held that its prior rulings did not clearly require the state court to impose the original sentence of the plea agreement. “Federal law” as interpreted by the US Supreme Court does not clearly establish that specific performance is constitutionally required.

    Facts: In 2005, the state of California charged Cuero with two felonies and a misdemeanor. Cuero originally pleaded “not guilty” but soon after changed his plea to “guilty.” Cuero signed the plea agreement, which stated Cuero “may receive this maximum punishment as a result of my plea: 14 years, 4 months in State Prison, $10,000 fine and 4 years parole.”

    Read More →