You are here: / GUILTY PLEAS

Tag Archive for: GUILTY PLEAS

, , ,

Valid Waiver of Appeal Does Not Preclude Review of Whether Ineffective Assistance Affected Voluntariness of Plea

The Second Department noted that a valid waiver of appeal precludes review of the factual sufficiency of a plea allocution, but does not preclude review of a claim of ineffective assistance where the voluntariness of the plea may have been affected:

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution … . While the valid waiver of his right to appeal would typically preclude review of the defendant’s claim that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel, here, the defendant claims that the alleged ineffective assistance may have affected the voluntariness of his plea, and, as such, his claim is reviewable … . Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant’s contention, his attorney provided him with meaningful representation … . Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea … . People v Milton, 2013 NY Slip Op 07507, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

, ,

Defense Counsel’s Statement Defendant “Most Likely” Would Not Be Deported Based on a Guilty Plea Did Not Amount to Ineffective Assistance

The Third Department determined that defense counsel’s statement that the defendant “most likely” would not be deported based on his guilty plea to a misdemeanor did not constitute ineffective assistance. Defendant had subsequently been detained by immigration officials for deportation:

…[D]efendant was required to establish both ‘that counsel’s performance was deficient’ and ‘that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense'” … .  Here, the record indeed makes clear that defendant was concerned about the possibility of being deported.  The record does not, however, establish that defendant was given erroneous advice regarding the potential immigration consequences associated with his guilty plea. People v Obeya, 105313, 3rd Dept 10-31-13

 

Plea Allocution Insufficient—Plea Vacated in Absence of Motion to Withdraw or Vacate

The Third Department determined defendant’s guilty plea was invalid (based on the allocution) and vacated it in the absence of a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction:

As the record before us does not indicate that defendant ever actually entered a guilty plea pursuant to the plea agreement, we reverse.   While defense counsel indicated that it was defendant’s “intent[]” to do so, after County Court had recited the terms of the plea agreement, which defendant indicated he had “heard,” defendant never actually admitted his guilt in any manner and did not enter a valid plea.  The plea allocution simply does not reflect that defendant “understood the nature of the charge against him . . . and voluntarily entered into such plea” .. .  Further, while defendant “was not required to recite the elements of his crime or engage in a factual exposition,” County Court did not pose any questions, read the count of the indictment, or explain the crime (or its elements) to which he was entering a plea, so as to “establish the elements of the crime” … ; nor did defendant provide “unequivocal . . . responses” or “indicate[] that he was entering the plea because he was, in fact, guilty” … .

While defendant did not move to withdraw the plea (and we have no indication on this record that defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction) so as to preserve his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution … , we find it appropriate to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction and reverse given, in part, that defense counsel may have been dissuaded from making such a motion by County Court’s advisement to defendant during the plea colloquy that if he violated the conditions of his release he “will not be permitted to withdraw [his] plea of guilty.”  Thus, we find that the plea was invalid. People v Beniquez, 104692, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

Failure to Inquire About Defendant’s Understanding of Intoxication Defense Required Vacation of Guilty Plea

The Second Department determined defendant’s guilty plea should be vacated because the defendant could not recall the events due to his intoxication and the court made no inquiry about whether the defendant was aware of the significance of his intoxication (a possible intoxication defense):

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree (see Penal Law § 120.05). At the plea allocution, the defendant indicated that he had a very limited recollection of the incident, but admitted his guilt based on photographs, police reports, and witness statements. The County Court acknowledged that the defendant could not recollect the incident because he had been drinking alcoholic beverages at the time of the assault, and that the defendant’s alleged intoxication at the time of the incident could negate the intent element of the crime of assault in the second degree (see Penal Law §§ 15.25, 120.05). While defense counsel stated that he had discussed “a possible intoxication defense” with the defendant and that the defendant understood it, the court made no inquiry of the defendant to ensure that he was aware of the significance of his claim of intoxication … . The court’s failure to conduct any such inquiry of the defendant requires vacatur of the defendant’s plea of guilty… . People v Jiminez, 2013 Slip Op 06386, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

Sentencing Court Could Amend Restitution Amount But First Must Give Defendant Opportunity to Withdraw Guilty Plea

The Third Department determined County Court had the authority to amend the amount of restitution initially ordered at sentencing.  However, the change required giving the defendant the right to withdraw the guilty plea:

Notably, “in the normal course of events, the People must ‘advise the court at or before the time of sentencing that the victim seeks restitution . . . and the amount of restitution . . . sought’ (Penal Law § 60.27 [1]), and the trial court must determine the amount of restitution at the time of sentencing” … .  Nevertheless, “the court’s continuing jurisdiction to impose restitution has been recognized where the claim for restitution is raised at or prior to sentencing and the modification or correction of the sentence occurs within a reasonable time thereafter” … .

Here, we do not find the delay between defendant’s September 2009 sentencing and the modification of the restitution order in September 2010 following a hearing unreasonable given the various factors presented by this case … .  “Nonetheless, [a] sentencing court may not impose a more severe sentence than one bargained for without providing [the] defendant the opportunity to withdraw his [or her] plea” … .  Thus, in light of the fact that the amended restitution amount unquestionably exceeds the total amount to which defendant agreed at the time of her plea and she seeks, among other things, vacatur of that plea herein, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter for the purpose of allowing defendant the opportunity to either accept the enhanced restitution amount or withdraw her plea… . People v Mahar, 103960, 3rd Dept 9-26-13

 

Statements Made In Plea Allocution Negated Guilt

The Third Department vacated defendant’s plea to forgery because, during the plea allocution, the defendant indicated he signed his own name on the credit card receipts.  Signing one’s own name cannot constitute forgery:

Although defendant waived his right to appeal and did not preserve his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea by moving to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is triggered because he made a statement during the allocution that cast doubt upon his guilt … .  During the allocution, defendant admitted to purchasing several items at various stores using a credit card that did not belong to him. When asked whether he had signed the credit card receipts using the name of the person to whom the card had been issued, defendant informed County Court that he did not know whose name was on the card and that he had signed the receipts in his own name.  * * *

Here, defendant’s signing of his own name to the credit card receipts would render him both the actual and ostensible maker of the instrument, and the making of the instrument would not constitute a forgery … .  Accordingly, defendant’s statement that he signed his own name to the receipts implicated the voluntariness of his guilty plea to forgery in the second degree, requiring further inquiry from County Court.  As the court failed to conduct such an inquiry, defendant’s plea must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court.  People v Morehouse, 104770, 3rd Dept 9-19-13

 

Imposition of Fine After Promise No Fine Would Be Imposed Required Vacation of Guilty Plea

The Third Department vacated defendant’s sentence because County Court promised the sentence would not include a fine, but County Court imposed a fine because a fine was required by law.  The court wrote:

Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with two counts of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.  County Court agreed, in return, to sentence him to an aggregate jail term of one year with no fines.  While County Court sentenced defendant to the contemplated jail term, it further imposed a fine of $1,000 on each count.  Defendant now appeals.

County Court promised defendant that his sentence would not include a fine, but such sentence would have been illegal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [b]…). The legal sentence that County Court imposed was inconsistent with that promise.  Although defendant failed to preserve this issue by moving to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, the sentence must nevertheless “be vacated, and the matter remitted . . . to afford . . . defendant the opportunity to accept the sentence that was actually imposed, or permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty”… .  People v Faulcon, 104625, 3rd Dept 9-19-13

 

, ,

Padilla v Kentucky, Which Held Attorney’s Failure to Inform Client of Immigration Consequences of Plea Was Ineffective Assistance, Not Applied Retroactively Under New York Constitution

The Second Department determined Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356, which held an attorney’s failure to inform his or her client of the immigration consequences of a plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, should not be applied retroactively under the New York Constitution:

In People v Pepper (53 NY2d 213, cert denied sub nom. New York v Utter, 454 US 1162), the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a new rule should be retroactively applied under the New York Constitution. It recognized three factors a court should weigh to determine whether to retroactively apply a new rule: (1) the purpose to be served by the new standard, (2) the extent to which law enforcement authorities relied upon the old standard, and (3) the effect a retroactive application of the new standard would have on the administration of justice (see id. at 220). The Court of Appeals explained that “the extent of the reliance and the nature of the burden on the administration of justice are of substantial significance only when the answer to the retroactivity question is not to be found in the purpose of the new rule itself” (id.). Thus, a new rule that goes “to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence” will be retroactively applied “where otherwise there could be a complete miscarriage of justice” (id. at 221). However, a new rule which is “only collateral to or relatively far removed from the fact-finding process at trial” (id.), will have only prospective application. Although the Supreme Court in Padilla held that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to inform their clients whether a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation, this new rule, 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 … .

Retroactive application of Padilla is also not warranted under the second and third Pepper factors. With regard to law enforcement reliance, prior to Padilla, a defendant could prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim only if it was established that counsel rendered incorrect advice regarding the immigration consequences of the guilty plea and that the defendant was prejudiced thereby … . The failure to advise a defendant of the possibility of deportation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel …, and such failure to advise did not “affect the voluntariness of a plea of guilty or the validity of a conviction” (CPL 220.50[7]). Thus, under the old standard, prosecutors could recommend acceptance of plea allocutions even where the defendant had not been advised of the immigration consequences of entering into the plea …. As to the third factor, retroactive application of the Padilla rule would potentially lead to an influx of CPL 440.10 motions to vacate the convictions of defendants whose guilty pleas were properly entered and accepted by courts under the old standard …, thus adversely affecting the criminal justice system. Accordingly, we further find that under New York law, the Padilla rule should not be retroactively applied to cases like this one where the convictions became final prior to March 31, 2010, the date Padilla was decided.  People v Andrews, 2013 NY Slip Op 05469, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

, ,

Waiver of Appeal Invalid; Counsel Did Not Take Position Adverse to Client Re: Pro Se Motion

In affirming the conviction, the Third Department determined the waiver of appeal (re; the harshness of the sentence) was not valid and defendant’s counsel had not take a position adverse to the defendant with respect to defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Although defense counsel responded negatively when the court asked if counsel knew of any legal basis for defendant’s motion, the Third Department explained that counsel was unaware of the contents of the motion at the time the court asked about it:

County Court failed to adequately distinguish the right to appeal from  those rights that are automatically forfeited upon  a guilty plea, thus rendering defendant’s appeal waiver invalid…. Moreover, no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was  also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence …. Nor do we  find that the deficiencies in the allocution are cured by defendant’s written appeal waiver…  * * *

…[D]efense counsel’s negative  response  to County  Court’s inquiry  at the outset of the hearing as to whether  “there [was] any  legal basis in [counsel’s] knowledge to allow [defendant] to withdraw his plea of guilty” was clearly not an opinion on the merits of defendant’s pro se motion – which counsel had not yet reviewed – and, thus, counsel did not thereby take a position adverse to that of his client or affirmatively undermine  the arguments  that defendant sought to present to the court… .  People v Pimentel, 104070, 3rd Dept 7-11-13

 

, ,

Supreme Court Case Relied Upon to Vacate Convictions by Guilty Plea Where Defendant Not Informed of Possibility of Deportation Can Not Be Applied Retroactively

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversed the sentencing court’s vacation of defendant’s conviction (by guilty plea).  The sentencing court had reversed the conviction on the ground defendant had not been informed of the risk of deportation based on the plea.  The sentencing court’s ruling was based upon the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010), which the sentencing court determined should be applied retroactively.  The First Department explained that Padilla should not be applied retroactively, overruling First Department and 3rd Department precedent:

Padilla has been accorded retroactive application by this Court …and the 3rd Department…. However, since Padilla “marks a break from both Federal and State law precedents . . . and fundamentally alters the Federal constitutional landscape, the principles of retroactivity developed by the Supreme Court in construing Federal constitutional law govern the disposition of this case” (People v Eastman, 85 NY2d 265, 275 [1995]).

The holding that Padilla announced new law, by which this Court is bound, dictates the conclusion that it has no retroactive application. As Eastman explains:  “Pursuant to Teague, new rules of constitutional criminal procedure are applied retrospectively in one of two situations: (1) where the new rule places certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law making authority to proscribe’ or (2) where the new rule alters a bedrock procedural element of criminal procedure which implicates the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the trial” (Eastman, 85 NY2d at 275, quoting Teague, 489 US at 311-312).

The rule announced in Padilla does neither, merely prescribing a duty imposed on counsel, and does not warrant retroactive application. Thus, defendant may not avail himself of the ruling… People v Verdejo, 2013 NY Slip Op 04913, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

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