People ex rel. Golan v. La Vallee, 14 N.Y.2d 85 (1964)

A defendant who pleads guilty without being warned, as required by Section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure, about the potential for increased punishment due to prior convictions, may challenge the conviction via habeas corpus.

Summary

This case addresses whether habeas corpus is available to a defendant who was not properly warned about the consequences of prior convictions before pleading guilty, as mandated by Section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Golan and Bristol, both sentenced as prior felony offenders after pleading guilty, sought habeas corpus relief because the sentencing courts failed to provide the required warning. The Court of Appeals held that failure to comply with Section 335-b renders the conviction void and subject to collateral attack via habeas corpus, requiring rearraignment and an opportunity for the defendant to replead.

Facts

Both Golan and Bristol pleaded guilty to crimes in separate New York counties in 1960. Golan was sentenced as a third felony offender, and Bristol as a second offender. In both instances, the presiding judge failed to inform the defendants, before accepting their guilty pleas, that their prior convictions could lead to increased punishment for the present offense, as required by Section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After commencing their sentences, both men filed writs of habeas corpus challenging their convictions based on this procedural deficiency.

Procedural History

The Clinton County Court dismissed Golan’s writ of habeas corpus, while the Cayuga County Court sustained Bristol’s writ. The Appellate Division, in separate decisions (Third Department for Golan, Fourth Department for Bristol), reversed the dismissal and affirmed the granting of the writ, respectively. Both Appellate Division rulings held that habeas corpus was an available remedy and ordered that the relators be remanded to the original trial courts for rearraignment and to enter a new plea. The People appealed these decisions to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a defendant who pleads guilty without receiving the warning required by Section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure may challenge the conviction through a writ of habeas corpus.
2. If habeas corpus is available, whether the appropriate remedy is resentencing as a first offender or remand for rearraignment and an opportunity to replead.

Holding

1. Yes, because failure to comply with Section 335-b renders the conviction void and subject to collateral attack, including habeas corpus.
2. Remand for rearraignment and an opportunity to replead, because resentencing as a first offender would violate the legislative scheme of increased punishment for recidivists.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that Section 335-b was enacted as a critical procedural safeguard to ensure defendants are aware of the potential for increased punishment due to prior convictions before pleading guilty. The purpose is to allow the accused to make an informed decision about whether to plead guilty or stand trial. Analogizing to Matter of Hubbell v. Macduff, 2 N.Y.2d 563, where a similar warning was required for traffic violations, the court held that noncompliance with Section 335-b, designed to operate in a more serious context, similarly renders the conviction void.

Regarding the appropriate remedy, the court rejected resentencing as a first offender, stating that it would undermine the legislative intent behind the multiple offender laws (Penal Law §§ 1941-1943), which mandate heavier punishment for repeat offenders. The court quoted People v. Gowasky, 244 N.Y. 451, 465-466, emphasizing that the statute