14 N.Y.2d 62 (1964)
When a statute requires the prosecution to state reasons on the record for recommending a plea to a lesser offense, failure to do so does not automatically invalidate the conviction if the prosecutor acquiesced to the plea, especially when the defendant seeks to withdraw the plea.
Summary
O’Connor was charged with multiple offenses but pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw his plea, arguing the Assistant District Attorney failed to state reasons for accepting the plea as required by the New York City Criminal Courts Act. The Appellate Division reversed, but the Court of Appeals reversed again, holding that the failure to state reasons did not invalidate the conviction because the prosecutor acquiesced to the plea, and the defendant himself sought the lesser plea. The court distinguished this from situations where the prosecutor objects to the lesser plea.
Facts
O’Connor was initially charged with unlawfully entering a building, petit larceny, and injury to property.
To resolve the charges, O’Connor pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of disorderly conduct.
After being sentenced for disorderly conduct, O’Connor attempted to withdraw his guilty plea.
Procedural History
The trial court denied O’Connor’s request to withdraw his guilty plea.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision, finding a failure to comply with the New York City Criminal Courts Act.
The People appealed the Appellate Division’s reversal to the New York Court of Appeals.
O’Connor cross-appealed, seeking dismissal of the original charges.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure of the Assistant District Attorney to state reasons on the record for recommending acceptance of a guilty plea to a lesser offense, as required by the New York City Criminal Courts Act, invalidates the conviction and requires dismissal of the original charges.
Holding
No, because the Assistant District Attorney acquiesced to the plea, and the defendant sought the lesser plea; therefore, the failure to state reasons on the record does not invalidate the conviction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from Matter of McDonald v. Sobel, where the District Attorney objected to the acceptance of a plea to a lesser charge. Here, the Assistant District Attorney consented to the acceptance of the lesser plea. The court relied on People v. D’Aula, which held that the omission by the District Attorney to take further proceedings is equivalent to acquiescence.
The court acknowledged the language of the New York City Criminal Courts Act, stating the court “shall have the power” to accept a plea to a lesser offense “when the reasons for the recommendation are stated in open court and upon the record.” However, it found this language not sufficiently different from section 342-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which describes the making of such a statement as the duty of the prosecutor) to warrant a different rule.
The court emphasized that O’Connor himself was appealing, seeking to be relieved from his own plea of guilty to the lesser offense. Therefore, he should not be allowed to do so.
Judge Bergan dissented, arguing that the statute’s language was jurisdictional and that the failure to state reasons on the record and show “facts before the court” was a significant omission. He also pointed out that the statute requires that the reason for the recommendation be made available for public inspection, which differs from mere consent from the district attorney.