People ex rel. Gallagher v. Follette, 22 N.Y.2d 242 (1968)
A warning regarding the potential impact of prior convictions on sentencing, as required by former Section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is sufficient if given before the acceptance of a guilty plea, even if not given at the initial arraignment where a not-guilty plea was entered.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals consolidated several cases concerning the interpretation of former Section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which required a warning about the effect of prior convictions on sentencing. In each case, the defendant did not receive the warning at the initial arraignment but did receive it before pleading guilty. The court held that the warning was sufficient because the purpose of the statute – to allow a defendant to decide whether to plead guilty with knowledge of potential consequences – was satisfied when the warning preceded the guilty plea. Failure to warn at the initial arraignment, where a not-guilty plea was entered, was not prejudicial.
Facts
Several relators initially pleaded not guilty at their arraignments without receiving the warning required by Section 335-b regarding the impact of prior convictions on sentencing. Subsequently, each relator changed their plea to guilty to a lesser charge. Before accepting these guilty pleas, the court provided the full warning required by Section 335-b. One relator, Shults, initially pleaded guilty after receiving the warning, then withdrew the plea and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge without a renewed warning.
Procedural History
The relators, having been convicted, sought habeas corpus relief, arguing that the failure to provide the Section 335-b warning at their initial arraignments rendered their convictions void. The lower courts denied relief. The cases were consolidated on appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the failure to provide a Section 335-b warning at the initial arraignment, where a not-guilty plea was entered, invalidates a subsequent guilty plea entered after the warning was given.
2. Whether a Section 335-b warning must be repeated before accepting a guilty plea entered after the defendant initially pleaded guilty and received the warning, but then withdrew the initial plea.
Holding
1. No, because the purpose of Section 335-b is satisfied when the warning is given before the acceptance of the guilty plea, allowing the defendant to make an informed decision about waiving the right to trial.
2. No, because the defendant already made the decision to waive the right to trial with full knowledge of its implications when the initial guilty plea was entered after receiving the required warning.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the purpose of Section 335-b is “to afford an accused the opportunity of deciding whether to plead guilty, knowing he runs the risk of a more severe sentence, or to deny guilt and stand trial.” The court emphasized that if a defendant initially pleads not guilty, a warning about the consequences of a guilty plea would serve no purpose. The court stated, “The lack of a warning upon such an initial arraignment — at which a not guilty plea was entered—could not possibly have occasioned any harm or prejudice, and it is not a sufficient ground for vacating a later plea, made only after the defendant had been fully warned of the consequences.”
Regarding Shults, the court distinguished this case from others where a warning was required before each guilty plea. Here, Shults had already received the warning and initially pleaded guilty. Allowing him to change his plea to a lesser charge did not necessitate a repeated warning because his decision to waive his right to trial had already been made with full knowledge of the consequences. As the court concluded, “[t]he warning is not an empty ritual to be recited regardless of whether it has any meaning. It is designed to serve a specific purpose, and that purpose was fulfilled in each of the present cases.”