People v Rodriguez
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 31, 2005
County Court, Greene County
The People of the State of New York,
against
Daniel Rodriguez, Defendant.
01-084V
George J. Pulver, J.
Presently pending before the Court is the People's motion, brought on by Order to Show Cause, seeking reinstatement of Defendant's March 5, 2002 convictions for Murder in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree. This Court entertained and signed the Order to Show Cause in the interest of justice. Oral argument was conducted on May 27, 2005 with appearances by District Attorney Terry J. Wilhelm and defense counsel Robert J. White, Esq. Defendant Daniel Rodriguez (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant") was also personally present.
The crux of the People's motion is that the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Division") reversed Defendant's judgment of conviction and remitted this case for retrial [see, Exhibits 1, 2] for the sole purpose of permitting Defendant to present the defense of mental disease or defect a defense which the Appellate Division determined this trial Court to have improperly deprived Defendant of his right to present when it denied the defense's eve-of-trial adjournment request. Now, with the defense having declared that it will not be presenting a defense of mental disease or defect at the retrial scheduled to commence on June 20, 2005, the People argue that Defendant is not entitled to a second trial on all issues. The People characterize this as giving Defendant a second "bite at the apple" on all issues including the duress defense which was already fully litigated, and rejected by the jury as to the murder and weapons possession charges, in the first trial.
The defense counters that it was the violation of Defendant's due process rights that precipitated the Appellate Division's reversal of the judgment of conviction and that, therefore, Defendant is entitled to a retrial regardless of what defense he presents thereat. The defense further asserts that the People are asking this Court to ignore the
Page 1 of 3 with Exhibits 1 - 5
Memoranda and Orders of the Appellate Division and act as a "super appellate court" and notes that fundamental fairness entitles Defendant to a second trial.
This Court finds itself on the horns of a dilemma in that it has been given "marching orders" to retry the instant case. Yet this Court agrees with the People, that it would not be a disregard of the Memoranda and Orders of the Appellate Division to grant the relief prayed for in this motion. Rather, in this Court's opinion, to grant the relief prayed for is to effectuate the intent and meaning of the Appellate Division Memoranda and Orders which contain explicit language setting forth the rationale relied upon. Indeed, the four corners of the Appellate Division's September 16, 2004 Memorandum and Order requiring a retrial make it quite clear that the purpose of the retrial was for Defendant to be afforded the opportunity which was erroneously foreclosed to him during the first trial; that is, the opportunity to present a defense of mental disease or defect to a jury of his peers. However, there is now unequivocal proof before this Court, by letter dated April 4, 2005 [see, Exhibit 3] and by defense counsel's Affirmation in Opposition dated May 26, 2005 [see, Exhibit 4] and by defense counsel's statements at oral [*2]argument of this motion [see, Exhibit 5 at pp. 14 - 16] that the defense (and by that the Court includes Defendant himself) has made the informed decision not to present any defense of mental disease or defect at the scheduled retrial. Specifically, present defense counsel Robert J. White, Esq., after consulting with Defendant, former defense counsel Frederick Rench, Esq. and other attorneys, has concluded that "the psychological evidence appears to be speculative and vague" and would "tend to contradict the affirmative defense of coercion" [see, Exhibit 3]. The defense's collective opinion is that the defense of mental disease or defect "would be flatly contradictive [of] the better defense * * * of duress ***" [Exhibit at p. 15] and was determined to be "counterproductive" and to "take[] away from the real defense" [Exhibit 5 at p. 16].
It is this Court's conclusion, strictly interpreting the language of the Appellate Division's Memoranda and Orders [see, Exhibits 1 and 2], that the defense's strategic decision not to present a defense of mental disease or defect at the retrial obviates the need for any retrial. Any error which this Court committed in preventing Defendant from presenting a potential defense at the initial trial is, therefore, harmless error insofar as
Page 2 of 3 with Exhibits 1 - 5
Defendant suffered no prejudice from this Court's actions.
Accordingly, after reflecting upon the facts and circumstances of this case, and
the arguments advanced in relation to the pending motion, it is hereby
ORDERED, in the interest of justice, that the March 5, 2002 judgment of conviction entered against Defendant Daniel Rodriguez for the crime of Murder in the Second Degree in violation of Penal Law § 125.25(1) and the sentence imposed of 25 years to life are reinstated; and it is further
ORDERED, in the interest of justice, that the March 5, 2002 judgment of conviction entered against Defendant Daniel Rodriguez for the crime of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree in violation of Penal Law § 265.03[2] and the sentence imposed of 15 years to be served concurrently and five years of postrelease supervision are reinstated; and it is further
ORDERED, in the interest of justice, that Defendant is remanded to the New York State Department of Correctional Services to continue service of the sentences previously imposed upon him; and it is further
ORDERED, in the interest of justice, that the retrial slated to occur on June 20, 2005 is hereby canceled, as moot by virtue of this Decision and Order.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Dated: May 31, 2005
Catskill, NY_____________________________________ HON. GEORGE J. PULVER JR. COUNTY COURT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3 with Exhibits 1 - 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
