You are here: / / THE JUDGE’S THREAT TO IMPOSE A MUCH HARSHER SENTENCE SHOULD THE DEFENDANT...
, ,

THE JUDGE’S THREAT TO IMPOSE A MUCH HARSHER SENTENCE SHOULD THE DEFENDANT BE CONVICTED AT TRIAL AMOUNTED TO COERCION RENDERING THE PLEA INVOLUNTARY; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE PLEA WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea in the interest of justice, determined the judge’s threat to impose a much harsher sentence if the defendant were to be convicted at trial amounted to coercion:

During a court appearance at which County Court extended a plea offer that called for an aggregate sentence of 15 years to life imprisonment, the court informed defendant that “my policy is if a defendant gets convicted at trial, that means that individual has not accepted responsibility for the conduct that they’ve been convicted of, and . . . [i]n all likelihood the sentence [after trial] would not even be close to the 20 years [to life sought by the People], it would be much more — — many more years and you are looking at a potential [of] 100 years to life.” The court issued a virtually identical admonition at the next appearance, and defendant subsequently accepted the court’s offer of 15 years to life imprisonment.

… [T]he court’s statements during plea negotiations did “not amount to a description of the range of the potential sentences but, rather, they constitute[d] impermissible coercion, ‘rendering the plea involuntary and requiring its vacatur’ ” … . People v Goodwin, 2021 NY Slip Op 07418, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

You might also like
PLENARY ACTION ALLEGING ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487; PRIOR MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION.
Teacher’s Subpoena for School Records of a Student Who Testified at the Teacher’s Education Law 3020-a Proceeding Should Have Been Quashed
COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT).
Stay of Arbitration Properly Denied, Collective Bargaining Agreement Allowed Issue to Be Determined in Arbitration
Contractual Relationship Did Not Preclude Causes of Action Sounding in Tort
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).
SENTENCE MUST BE PRONOUNCED ON EACH COUNT OF THE CONVICTION; SENTENCE VACATED AND REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS A PRIME, NOT A GENERAL, CONTRACTOR AND DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HOWEVER, DEFENDANT DID EXERCISE SOME CONTROL OVER WORK-SITE SAFETY AND THEREFORE MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING AND DEATH UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW PRIVATE... THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE WOULD BE INCLINED...