People v. Echevarria, 68 N.Y.2d 672 (1986)
A motion to vacate a guilty plea based on an error apparent on the record must be raised by direct appeal, but a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be raised in a collateral attack on the judgment of conviction.
Summary
Defendant, a physician, pleaded guilty to violating the Public Health Law for engaging in a fee-splitting arrangement. She later sought to vacate the plea, arguing it was involuntary because she lacked the requisite intent for a “wilful” violation and that her counsel was ineffective. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision to vacate the plea, holding that errors apparent on the record must be raised by direct appeal, and while ineffective assistance claims can be raised collaterally, the defendant received effective representation given her primary concern was avoiding jail time and multiple charges, which her counsel achieved.
Facts
Defendant, a physician, entered into a fee-splitting arrangement with her landlord. As a result, she was charged with violating the Public Health Law. During her plea allocution, she admitted to the arrangement but stated she wasn’t aware it was illegal. Four months after pleading guilty, she was permanently disqualified from the Medicaid reimbursement program because she “wilfully” violated the Public Health Law. Eight months later, she moved to vacate her conviction, arguing that a “wilful violation” requires specific intent, which she lacked.
Procedural History
The Criminal Court granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment. The Appellate Term affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Term’s order, reinstating the original judgment of conviction.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the alleged involuntariness of the defendant’s plea, based on statements made during allocution, is reviewable by way of a CPL article 440 motion to vacate the judgment.
2. Whether the defendant’s conviction should be vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea proceeding.
Holding
1. No, because when sufficient facts appear on the record to permit review, the sufficiency of the plea allocution can be reviewed only by direct appeal.
2. No, because the defendant sought the result she received, and objectively evaluated, the defendant received effective representation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that under People v. Cooks, errors apparent on the record regarding the voluntariness of a plea must be raised by direct appeal, not a post-trial motion to vacate. The court acknowledged that ineffective assistance of counsel claims can be raised collaterally. However, it found no merit to the defendant’s claim, noting that her primary concern was to avoid jail time and multiple charges, which her counsel successfully negotiated. The court highlighted that numerous charges were dropped due to the plea agreement. Further, the court pointed out the defendant’s delay in bringing the motion after being advised during the administrative proceedings that the charge involved wilful conduct. The court concluded that counsel could have reasonably advised the defendant to plead guilty, believing that specific intent was not an element of the charged crime, a strategy that a “reasonably competent attorney” might have pursued. The court stated: “[C]ounsel could have advised defendant to plead guilty believing that specific intent was not an element of the charged crime and, given this state of law, the contested plea strategy might well have been pursued by a ‘reasonably competent attorney’.”