People v. Johnson, 24 N.Y.3d 974 (2014)
A guilty plea may be vacated if the record demonstrates a complete confusion and mutual misunderstanding by the court, counsel, and defendant regarding the essential elements of the crime to which the defendant is pleading.
Summary
Defendant Johnson pleaded guilty to second-degree rape, a class D felony, based on the victim’s alleged mental incapacitation due to intoxication. However, the facts suggested the victim was voluntarily intoxicated, which does not meet the statutory definition of “mentally incapacitated” under Penal Law § 130.00(6). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s affirmation of the conviction, holding that the plea allocution reflected a fundamental misunderstanding by all parties involved regarding the elements of the crime. Despite the general rule that a factual basis is not required for negotiated pleas to lesser crimes, the court found that the pervasive confusion surrounding the plea warranted vacating it to ensure the defendant’s understanding of the charges.
Facts
The victim remembered drinking at a bar and then waking up at home in a disheveled state, missing her cell phone and other belongings. She discovered evidence suggesting a sexual assault. The victim did not recall the assault itself or any interaction with the defendant. The victim’s cell phone was traced to the defendant, and his DNA matched semen from a rape kit.
Procedural History
Defendant was indicted on two counts of first-degree rape and one count of criminal possession of stolen property. He pleaded guilty to second-degree rape, a class D felony, after plea bargaining. Before sentencing, the defendant moved to withdraw his plea, arguing he was unaware of the circumstances and not guilty. The Supreme Court denied the motion and sentenced the defendant. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a guilty plea to rape in the second degree should be vacated when the plea allocution and surrounding circumstances indicate a pervasive misunderstanding by the court, counsel, and defendant regarding the statutory definition of “mentally incapacitated” and its application to the facts of the case.
Holding
Yes, because the record suggests that the defendant, his counsel, and the court all labored under a misconception of the legal elements necessary to support a conviction for second-degree rape based on mental incapacitation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that while a factual basis for a guilty plea is not always required, particularly in negotiated pleas to lesser offenses (citing People v. Clairborne, 29 NY2d 950 (1972)), the circumstances of this case warranted vacating the plea. The court emphasized that the plea allocution demonstrated a