You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS REPEATEDLY WARNED HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO 45 YEARS AFTER...
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS REPEATEDLY WARNED HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO 45 YEARS AFTER TRIAL WHEN, IN FACT, HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE CAPPED AT 20 YEARS; DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS GROUND FOR AN ATTACK ON HIS SENTENCE AND THEREFORE DID NOT NEED TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL BY MOVING TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined defendant’s guilty plea should be vacated because he was under the impression he was avoiding a 45 year sentence when, in fact, he could have been sentenced to a maximum of 20 years. Although defendant did not move to withdraw his plea which is usually required to preserve the issue for appeal, here the defendant had no knowledge of the ground for a motion to withdraw:

… [T]he court repeatedly told defendant that he faced a possible sentence of 45 years, but not that defendant’s sentence would ultimately be reduced to 20 years. …

The Court of Appeals … has carved out an exception to the preservation doctrine, in certain instances. “because of the ‘actual or practical unavailability of either a motion to withdraw the plea’ or a ‘motion to vacate the judgment of conviction,'” reasoning that ” ‘a defendant can hardly be expected to move to withdraw his plea on a ground of which he has no knowledge’ ” … . …

Here, the court’s misinformation had great significance. The court repeatedly warned defendant that he could face 45 years in prison if he proceeded to trial on all three of his open burglary cases, and neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel corrected the record. Moreover, defendant, who had already had a failed allocution, did not plead guilty until just before jury selection was to begin, and after the court had repeatedly warned him that he could face as much as 45 years in jail if he proceeded to trial and was convicted. People of the State of New York v Joseph, 2020 NY Slip Op 07472, First Dept 12-10-20

 

You might also like
DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR MAY APPLY TO WINDOW FALLING ONTO PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT BUILDING MANAGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
ACCOUNTING CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; PROPER WAY TO HANDLE A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS TO MOVE TO VACATE AND THEN APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 70, THE ANTI-SLAPP LAW, DO NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO THE PLAINTIFF’S PENDING DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED IT HAD RAINED FOR ONLY FIVE MINUTES BEFORE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON THE FLOOR; THEREFORE HER TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR “BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD” BY PRESENTING SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE LEGALITY OF POLICE CONDUCT AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED DEFENDANT WERE MADE AWARE OF THE CO-DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ARREST; THE FACT THAT GAPS IN THE PEOPLE’S PROOF MAY HAVE BEEN FILLED IN BY THE DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING DIDN’T CURE THE DEFICIENCY (FIRST DEPT).
THE EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION CONSTITUTED AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS UNAFFECTED BY THE SUBSEQUENT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL COURT’S DECLARING A MISTRIAL VIOLATED THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE SUMMARY JURY TRIAL RULES (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CLAIMANT, AN UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT WITHOUT A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, DEMONSTRATED... DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE IN...