You are here: / GUILTY PLEAS

Tag Archive for: GUILTY PLEAS

, ,

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA REQUIRED THAT HE BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS CASE MANDATING AN EXPLANATION OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT’S PLEA.

The Second Department determined defendant should be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea because he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the plea. Although the Court of Appeals case requiring that the deportation consequences be explained came down after defendant’s plea, the issue was properly raised on defendant’s direct appeal:

Relying upon People v Peque (22 NY3d 168) the defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because the plea record demonstrates that the court never advised him of the possibility that he would be deported as a consequence of his plea. In Peque, the Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of “fundamental fairness,” due process requires that a court apprise a noncitizen pleading guilty to a felony of the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the plea of guilty (id. at 193). A defendant seeking to vacate a plea based on this defect must establish that there is a “reasonable probability” that he or she would not have pleaded guilty and would instead have gone to trial had the court warned of the possibility of deportation (id. at 176, 198).

As a threshold matter, we disagree with the People’s contention that Peque should only apply prospectively. Inasmuch as Peque, decided after the defendant’s plea, involved federal constitutional principles, it must be applied to this direct appeal … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the record does not demonstrate either that the Supreme Court mentioned, or that the defendant was otherwise aware of, the possibility of deportation. Therefore, the defendant’s claim is not subject to the requirement of preservation … . People v Odle, 2015 NY Slip Op 09699, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF GUILTY PLEA ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW PLEA)/DEPORTATION (DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF GUILTY PLEA, ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW PLEA)

, , ,

WHERE NO NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED, A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL EXPIRES.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, determined a judgment of conviction and sentence becomes final when the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal expires (where no notice is filed). Here the issue was whether the defendant could move to vacate his conviction by guilty plea because he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the plea. Because the motion to vacate would not be available if defendant’s conviction and sentence became final before Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356) was decided (requiring that a defendant be informed of deportation consequence of a plea), the date of finality was determinative. If the finality date is 30 days after conviction and sentence, defendant’s conviction and sentence would have been final before Padilla was decided. If, as defendant argued, the conviction and sentence became final one year and 30 days after the conviction and sentence, when the time for moving to file a late notice of appeal expired, defendant’s conviction and sentence would not have been final before Padilla was decided. Because the Court of Appeals decided the conviction and sentence became final when no notice of appeal was filed within 30 days, defendant could not move to vacate his conviction:

Adopting defendant’s reasoning would result in uncertainty in the finality of judgments in many procedural situations. For example, a defendant who takes a direct appeal to the Appellate Division but does not seek leave to appeal to this Court in a timely fashion could argue that the judgment was not final until one year and 30 days after the Appellate Division affirmance, inasmuch as the defendant could have sought leave from this Court to file a belated application for discretionary review pursuant to CPL 460.30 (1). Or, a defendant who has filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division but has had the appeal dismissed due to failure to perfect could argue that the judgment is not yet final, inasmuch as the defendant could ask the Appellate Division to vacate the dismissal of the appeal.

Indeed, if we adopt defendant’s logic, other defendants who did not take a direct appeal conceivably could argue that their judgments were never final, inasmuch as they could seek to file a late notice of appeal even after the one-year grace period of CPL 460.30 has expired by moving for a writ of error coram nobis … . People v Varenga, 2015 NY Slip Op 09312, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (WHERE NO NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED, A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL EXPIRES)/JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (BECOMES FINAL UPON EXPIRATION OF 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL)

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA RENDERED THE PLEA INVALID.

he Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction by guilty plea because the defendant was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision at the time of the plea. Defendant was told by the sentencing judge (at the time of the plea) if he violated interim probation (which was to lead to a felony probation) he would be sentenced to four years in prison. No mention was made of postrelease supervision. Defendant violated the terms of the interim probation and was sentenced to four years incarceration plus two years of postrelease supervision:

… [I]t is well settled that, for a defendant’s plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered into, a court must advise him or her of the direct consequences of a plea prior to sentencing, including the existence and duration of any postrelease supervision requirement … . Here, as the People concede, at the time of his plea, defendant was not properly made aware of the postrelease supervision component of his sentence. Accordingly, defendant’s decision to plead guilty was not a knowing, voluntary and intelligent one and, therefore, the judgment of conviction must be reversed … . People v Binion, 2015 NY Slip Op 09142, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

CRIMINAL LAW (POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF)/SENTENCING (POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF)/POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF)/PLEA (GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY IF DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION)

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF THE WAIVER WAS ERRONEOUS; NO ASSURANCE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHTS WAIVED BY GUILTY PLEA AND APPELLATE RIGHTS.

The First Department sent the matter back for resentencing because the record suggested the sentencing judge erroneously thought he did not have the power to impose a reduced sentence. The First Department determined the defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because the sentencing judge erroneously stated the relevant law and did not make sure the defendant understood the difference between the rights waived by entering a guilty plea and his appellate rights:

Defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, where the court failed to adequately ensure defendant’s understanding that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty … . The court’s statement that defendant was “waiving [his] right to appeal any legal issues connected with the case, including the sentence” (emphasis added) was incorrect, insofar as a defendant cannot waive certain rights, such as the right to challenge the legality of a sentence or raise a speedy trial claim … . The court’s further statement that the “right of appeal is waived by [defendant], the rights I just mentioned are automatically waived by a plea” was insufficient to explain that the right to appeal is not included with those automatically waived by a guilty plea, since the court had “just mentioned” that right. Moreover, defendant’s execution of a written waiver “does not, standing alone, provide sufficient assurance that the defendant is knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily giving up his or her right to appeal” … . People v Flores, 2015 NY Slip Op 08905, 1st  Dept 12-3-15

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER INVALID)/WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID

, ,

Inaccurate Advice About the Deportation Consequences of a Guilty Plea Constitutes Ineffective Assistance; Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction in this Pre-Padilla Case

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction (by guilty plea) in this pre-Padilla case. Defendant alleged he was told deportation was not likely, or was a “possibility,” when, in fact, deportation was mandatory. That allegation, plus an assertion he would have negotiated a different plea which did not require deportation had he known the actual consequences of his plea, was sufficient to warrant a hearing:

In Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires criminal defense counsel to advise their noncitizen clients about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea. However, that decision is not applied retroactively to state court postconviction proceedings … . Since the defendant’s judgment of conviction became final when his time to take an appeal expired—long before Padilla was decided in 2010—Padilla is not applicable here. Therefore, “counsel’s failure to warn a defendant that a guilty plea might lead to removal from the United States” …  does not, in this case, amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.

However, “inaccurate advice about a guilty plea’s immigration consequences constitute[s]” ineffective assistance of counsel … . People v Pinto, 2015 NY Slip Op 08441, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

, , ,

Non-Constitutional Appellate Issues Re: Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test (DWI) Do Not Survive a Guilty Plea

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined defendant, by pleading guilty, had forfeited his right to appellate review of (non-constitutional) rulings about the admissibility of his refusal to submit to a chemical test (DWI) after his involvement in a car accident. The court explained why some appellate issues survive a guilty plea and some don’t:

The Court of Appeals has repeatedly observed that “a plea of guilty generally marks the end of a criminal case, not a gateway to further litigation'” … . A guilty plea signals the defendant’s intention not to litigate the issue of his or her guilt, “and necessarily involves the surrender of certain constitutional rights, including the right to confrontation, the privilege against self incrimination and the right to trial by jury” … . A guilty plea not only encompasses a waiver of the specific rights attached to a trial, but also “effects a forfeiture of the right to renew many arguments made before the plea” … . “This is so because a defendant’s conviction rests directly on the sufficiency of his plea, not on the legal or constitutional sufficiency of any proceedings which might have led to his conviction after trial'” … . The forfeiture occasioned by a guilty plea extends to a variety of claims, including those premised upon a failure to provide CPL 710.30 notice … , the statutory right to a speedy trial … , the exercise of alleged discriminatory peremptory challenges … , and adverse rulings on Sandoval and Ventimiglia/Molineux applications … .

However, not every claim is forfeited by a guilty plea. The issues that survive a valid guilty plea generally relate either to jurisdictional matters, such as an insufficient accusatory instrument, or to rights of a constitutional dimension that go to the heart of the criminal justice process … . “The critical distinction is between defects implicating the integrity of the process, which may survive a guilty plea, and less fundamental flaws, such as evidentiary or technical matters, which do not” … . Examples of rights of constitutional dimension which are not forfeited by a guilty plea include the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the protection against double jeopardy, and the competency of the defendant to stand trial … .

Among the limited group of issues that survive a valid guilty plea and may be raised on a subsequent appeal are those relating to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under CPL 710.20 … . The Legislature has preserved such claims for appellate review through the enactment of CPL 710.70(2) … . CPL 710.70(2) expressly grants a defendant a statutory right to appellate review of an order denying a motion to suppress evidence “notwithstanding the fact” that the judgment of conviction “is entered upon a plea of guilty.” However, the statutory right to appellate review created by CPL 710.70(2) applies to orders which deny a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds enumerated by CPL 710.20 … .  Athough CPL 710.20(5)  authorizes a defendant to move to suppress evidence of “a chemical test of the defendant’s blood administered in violation of the provisions” of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(3) or “any other applicable law,” that provision is not implicated here. In this case, the defendant did not move to suppress the results of a chemical test of his blood. Indeed, the police did not perform a chemical test upon the defendant. Rather, he moved to preclude the People from admitting testimony of his refusal to submit to a chemical test. Such a motion cannot be characterized as one seeking suppression under CPL 710.20(5). Accordingly, the defendant does not have a statutory right to appellate review of the County Court’s ruling permitting the introduction of evidence of his refusal to submit to a chemical test.

Nor is the defendant’s claim that the County Court erred in ruling that the People would be permitted to introduce evidence at trial of his refusal to submit to a chemical test a claim of constitutional dimension, or one that bears upon the integrity of the judicial process. Rather, the court’s determination relates to an evidentiary or technical matter. People v Sirico, 2015 NY Slip Op 07862, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

Broken Sentence Promise Required Vacatur of the Guilty Plea

The Third Department determined defendant’s guilty plea was induced by County Court’s promise to impose a sentence of shock incarceration. At sentencing, County Court refused to order shock incarceration. Because the plea was induced by the broken promise, the plea was not knowing and voluntary. The fact that neither the People nor County Court could guarantee defendant’s participation in the shock incarceration program was deemed irrelevant:

We start with the principle that a trial court always “retains discretion in fixing an appropriate sentence up until the time of sentencing” … . However, when the court wishes to depart from a promised sentence, it must either honor the promise or give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea … . Accordingly, “[a] guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored” … .

Here, prior to defendant’s guilty plea, County Court indicated its belief that defendant was eligible for shock incarceration and then unequivocally promised that it “would order him into it.” When defendant specifically asked if shock incarceration was guaranteed, the court stated that it “would order it absolutely” and that a failure on the part of prison authorities to admit him would “defy an order of the [c]ourt.” Furthermore, defense counsel stated that he was recommending that defendant accept the plea agreement “especially with a shock commitment.” Thus, regardless of the fact that “neither County Court nor the People possessed the authority to guarantee [defendant’s] participation” in the shock incarceration program … , the record reflects that defendant, in accepting the plea, relied upon County Court’s promise to do exactly that. Consequently, we find that defendant’s plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and that, because County Court’s promise to defendant cannot be honored as a matter of law, he is entitled to vacatur of his guilty plea … . People v Muhammad, 2015 NY Slip Op 07702, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

, ,

People v Peque, Which Requires that a Defendant Be Informed of the Immigration Consequences of a Guilty Plea, Is Not Applied Retroactively

The Second Department determined that People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), which requires that defendant’s be informed of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, would not be applied retroactively:

The defendant’s conviction became final prior to People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), in which the Court of Appeals held that courts were required to advise defendants of the deportation consequences of a plea of guilty. The defendant contends that Peque should be applied retroactively. This contention is without merit.

Previously, in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356), the United States Supreme Court held that defense counsel were under a duty to advise noncitizen defendants of the deportation risks of their pleas of guilty. It is now settled that the Padilla decision does not apply retroactively in state court postconviction proceedings … . For the same reasons, we decline to give retroactive application to Peque, which, like Padilla, concerns the immigration consequences of a plea of guilty, and “rather than going to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence, instead concentrates on the defendant’s appreciation of the immigration consequences that may flow from an otherwise proper plea allocution” … . People v Pena, 2015 NY Slip Op 07685, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

Conviction Based Upon Plea Where Defendant Was Not Advised of the Period of Postrelease Supervision Is Unconstitutional for Predicate Felony Purposes—Catu Applied Retroactively

The First Department determined a 2002 conviction based upon a (pre-Catu) plea during which defendant was not advised of the period of postrelease supervision is unconstitutional for predicate felony purposes:

CPL 400.15(7)(b) provides: “A previous conviction . . . which was obtained in violation of the rights of the defendant under the applicable provisions of the constitution of the United States must not be counted in determining whether the defendant has been subjected to a predicate felony conviction” … . Because a conviction obtained in violation of Catu implicates rights under the federal Constitution as well as the state constitution (see Catu, 4 NY3d at 245 …), the court properly granted defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion and vacated his sentence as a second violent felony offender on the ground that his 2002 conviction could not be counted as a predicate felony under CPL 400.15(7)(b).

The underlying conviction preceded the Catu decision. However, contrary to the People’s contention, we find that the rule of law announced in Catu applies retroactively to pre-Catu convictions … . People v Smith, 2015 NY Slip Op 07565, 1st Dept 10-15-15

 

,

Guilty Plea to Possession of a Weapon Charge in One County Precluded Prosecution for the Same Offense in Another County (Double Jeopardy)

The Fourth Department determined charges stemming from the possession of a weapon in two counties triggered the protection against double jeopardy:

Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [3]). The charges arose from an incident in which defendant discharged a firearm into the bedroom window of an occupied, residential home in Oswego County during the early morning hours of March 5, 2012. Defendant was apprehended by the police later that day at a motel in Onondaga County, where a handgun was found in his vehicle. Prior to his trial in Oswego County Court, defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to, in Onondaga County Court, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree for the handgun recovered from his vehicle. * * *

It is well settled that a defendant has “the right not to be punished more than once for the same crime” … . “When successive prosecutions are involved, the guarantee serves a constitutional policy of finality for the defendant’s benefit . . . and protects the accused from attempts to secure additional punishment after a prior conviction and sentence” … . This case presents a prototypical instance of a constitutional double jeopardy violation inasmuch as defendant was prosecuted and convicted of a crime in Oswego County to which he had pleaded guilty in Onondaga County. In both instances, the charge was the same: criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 265.03 (3).

We reject the People’s contention that double jeopardy did not attach because defendant was convicted in Oswego County before he was sentenced on his guilty plea in Onondaga County. “[T]ermination of a criminal action by entry of a guilty plea constitutes a previous prosecution for double jeopardy purposes” … . People v Gardner, 2015 NY Slip Op 07363, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

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