1 N.Y.3d 126 (2003)
When a guilty plea is induced by the court’s explicit promise of a lesser sentence to run concurrently with a sentence in another case, and that original conviction is overturned, the defendant may withdraw their plea.
Summary
Juan Carlos Pichardo pleaded guilty to a drug charge in Bronx County in exchange for a 1-to-3-year sentence to run concurrently with a 20-years-to-life murder sentence in New York County. Subsequently, his murder conviction was vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and he was acquitted on retrial. Pichardo then moved to vacate the drug conviction, arguing the plea was induced by the concurrent sentence promise, which could no longer be fulfilled. The Supreme Court granted his motion, but the Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that Pichardo was entitled to withdraw his plea because the fundamental basis for it—the concurrent sentence—had disappeared.
Facts
Pichardo was convicted of murder in New York County and sentenced to 20 years to life. One week later, he pleaded guilty in Bronx County to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, in exchange for a 1-to-3-year sentence to run concurrently with the murder sentence. The guilty plea was based on selling one bag of cocaine for $20 to an undercover officer. Years later, Pichardo’s murder conviction was vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel. He was retried and acquitted of murder. Pichardo had already served his 1-to-3-year drug sentence by this time.
Procedural History
After being acquitted of murder, Pichardo moved in Bronx County Supreme Court to vacate his drug conviction under CPL 440.10, arguing his plea was induced by the now-vacated murder sentence. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The Appellate Division reversed, reinstating the drug conviction. Pichardo appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant is entitled to withdraw a guilty plea entered in exchange for a sentence to run concurrently with another sentence when the initial conviction is overturned.
Holding
Yes, because the condition that induced the admission of guilt—the concurrent sentence promise—fundamentally changed when the murder conviction was vacated. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the Supreme Court’s order vacating the plea.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on its prior holdings, including People v. Taylor, People v. Boston, People v. Fuggazzatto, People v. Rogers, and People v. Clark, stating that it had consistently concluded that when a guilty plea is induced by the court’s explicit promise that the defendant will receive a lesser sentence to run concurrently with a sentence in another case, and that conviction is overturned, the defendant may withdraw his plea since the promise cannot be kept. The Court distinguished People v. Lowrance, where there was no clear promise of a concurrent sentence. The Court dismissed the argument that Pichardo had already received the benefit of his bargain because he served the drug sentence concurrently with the murder sentence, noting that the timing was not determinative. “What changed essentially here were the facts that induced defendant’s plea. In effect, when the murder conviction was vacated, defendant’s ‘concurrent’ time became a nullity—in the eyes of the law, it is as if he served no time at all on the murder, and his sentence on the drug charge stood alone, based on an unfulfilled and unfulfillable promise.” The Court concluded that Pichardo would not have pleaded guilty to the drug charge—based on selling a $20 bag of cocaine—had it not been for the murder conviction, of which he now stands acquitted. The court suggested that a better practice might be for the parties to spell out the consequences that will follow upon vacatur of the conviction. The dissent argued that vacatur was unwarranted because the lesser sentence was completed while the defendant was serving a concurrent sentence and it is not manifestly unjust to hold defendant to his negotiated plea since the drug and murder charges did not share any common defenses.