People v. Parris; People v. Hofler

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the loss of court reporter minutes required reversal of criminal convictions or entitled defendants to reconstruction hearings. The court held that missing minutes alone do not require reversal, and that a reconstruction hearing is generally available to a defendant appealing after trial if the defendant acted diligently, but is available to a defendant who pleaded guilty only upon identification of an appealable issue related to the missing proceedings. The court affirmed the convictions of Peter Parris and Donnell Hofler.

Holdings

1. The loss of reporter's minutes does not by itself require reversal. Reversal requires a showing that the missing minutes left inadequate means to determine whether appealable and reviewable issues were present, together with sufficient prejudice to overcome the presumption of regularity.
2. When a significant portion of the minutes has been lost, a defendant appealing a conviction after trial should normally have the opportunity for a reconstruction hearing if the defendant acted with reasonable diligence to mitigate the harm caused by the loss.
3. Parris was not entitled to a reconstruction hearing because he did not act diligently after learning that the minutes were missing.
4. A defendant who pleaded guilty is entitled to a reconstruction hearing only if the defendant identifies an appealable ground based on something that occurred during the untranscribed proceeding.
5. Hofler was not entitled to reversal or a reconstruction hearing because he identified no appealable issue to which the missing plea minutes were relevant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the inadvertent loss of court reporter minutes, standing alone, requires reversal of a criminal conviction.
2. Whether a defendant convicted after trial is ordinarily entitled to a reconstruction hearing when a significant portion of the minutes has been lost, and what diligence is required.
3. Whether a defendant who pleaded guilty is entitled to a reconstruction hearing without identifying an appealable issue based on the untranscribed proceeding.

Disposition

affirmed