People v. Bluitt, 66 N.Y.2d 970 (1985)

A defendant forfeits the right to challenge the constitutionality of persistent felony offender statutes or proceedings if they fully participate in the hearing with counsel without raising objections before the trial court.

Summary

The defendant was convicted of multiple crimes and subsequently sentenced as a persistent felony offender. On appeal, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the statute used to determine his status as a persistent felony offender, as well as the manner in which the hearing was conducted. The New York Court of Appeals held that because the defendant participated fully in the hearing with counsel and failed to raise these objections at the trial level, he forfeited his right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute or the proceeding on appeal. The court also found no abuse of due process related to the sentence enhancement sought after trial.

Facts

The defendant was convicted of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree. Following the jury verdict, a hearing was conducted under CPL 400.20 to determine if the defendant should be sentenced as a persistent felony offender. The trial court determined that the defendant met the criteria for persistent felony offender status. He was then sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment, with the longest having a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life.

Procedural History

The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that CPL 400.20 was unconstitutional and that the hearing was improperly conducted. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant forfeited his right to challenge the constitutionality of CPL 400.20 and the persistent felony offender hearing by failing to raise objections at the trial court level.
2. Whether the defendant’s due process rights were violated when the prosecution sought an enhanced sentence after trial, despite offering a plea to a reduced charge before trial.

Holding

1. Yes, because the defendant participated fully in the hearing with the aid of counsel and without asserting those objections before the trial court.
2. No, because seeking an enhanced sentence after trial following a failed plea negotiation does not violate due process.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the defendant’s active participation in the persistent felony offender hearing, assisted by counsel, without raising any objections to the constitutionality of CPL 400.20 or the hearing process, constituted a forfeiture of the right to raise those issues on appeal. The court distinguished this situation from cases where the trial court exceeded its sentencing powers, such as in People v. Morse. The court emphasized that objections must be timely and specific to preserve errors for appellate review.

Regarding the due process claim, the court cited Bordenkircher v. Hayes, noting that seeking an enhanced sentence after trial following a failed plea negotiation does not violate due process. The court found no abuse of the defendant’s rights in this regard. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bordenkircher, “defendants are free to accept or reject a plea offer, and prosecutors are free to threaten or carry out more serious charges during plea negotiations.”