People v. Sobotker, 61 N.Y.2d 44 (1984)
A defendant who pleads guilty to an offense forfeits the statutory right to transactional immunity for that offense, even if they subsequently testify before a grand jury concerning the same offense before sentencing.
Summary
Sobotker pleaded guilty to misdemeanor gambling offenses. Before sentencing, he testified before a grand jury about one of the underlying transactions, pursuant to a subpoena and without executing a written waiver of immunity. Sobotker then sought to dismiss the charges, arguing he had acquired statutory immunity by testifying. The trial court denied the motion, but the Appellate Term reversed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a guilty plea forfeits the statutory right to transactional immunity, preventing a defendant from using grand jury testimony before sentencing to retroactively gain immunity. The Court reasoned that allowing such immunity after a guilty plea would introduce unwarranted gamesmanship into the justice system.
Facts
Three felony complaints were filed against Sobotker for gambling offenses allegedly committed on April 17, May 3, and July 23, 1980.
On August 28, 1980, Sobotker pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor offenses of attempted gambling in full satisfaction of the felony charges, pursuant to an agreement with the prosecutor. He also made a sworn statement concerning the May 3 offense, relating to a codefendant who had absconded.
Sentencing was scheduled for October 23, 1980.
Procedural History
The trial court denied Sobotker’s motion to dismiss the charges based on immunity.
Sobotker appealed to the Appellate Term, which reversed the conviction and dismissed the charge relating to the May 3 offense, while affirming the other convictions. (117 Misc 2d 394).
The People were granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals from the portion of the Appellate Term’s order adverse to them; Sobotker’s application was denied.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant who pleads guilty to an offense and then gives grand jury testimony concerning it, prior to being sentenced, can claim statutory immunity (CPL 190.40) for the offense to which they pleaded guilty.
Holding
No, because a defendant forfeits the statutory right to transactional immunity when they plead guilty to an offense, even if grand jury testimony concerning the offense is given before sentencing.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court distinguished between the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the broader protection afforded by the immunity statute. While the Fifth Amendment prevents the use of compelled statements, the immunity statute grants full dispensation from criminal liability once someone is compelled to testify. The Court cited People v Rappaport, 47 NY2d 308, 313 stating the immunity statute grants “full dispensation from criminal liability for an act once he has been compelled to testify concerning the crime”.
While a defendant retains a legitimate interest in asserting their Fifth Amendment rights after a guilty plea (as the plea may be set aside on appeal, or statements used at sentencing), the statutory right to immunity is forfeited by the plea. The Court reasoned that a statutory right is forfeited when the statute would confer on the defendant greater rights than the Constitution demands.
“A defendant can have no legitimate expectation of obtaining complete immunity from prosecution or punishment for an offense once he has pleaded guilty to the crime.” The court noted the formal waiver process in the statute is irrelevant, because the central question is whether a forfeiture of the statutory right was a necessary consequence of the guilty plea.
Allowing a defendant to gain immunity after a guilty plea introduces “an element of chance and gamesmanship which is inconsistent with the ends of justice”.