New York Law Review

Tag: Forfeiture of Appeal

  • People v. Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1 (1985): Conditional Guilty Pleas and Forfeiture of Rights on Appeal

    65 N.Y.2d 1 (1985)

    A defendant’s guilty plea typically forfeits the right to appeal prior non-jurisdictional rulings, and conditional guilty pleas, where a defendant attempts to preserve the right to appeal specific issues, are generally not accepted in New York.

    Summary

    Defendant Taylor pleaded guilty to murder and burglary charges. He then sought to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to file a late notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence. The New York Court of Appeals held that Taylor’s guilty plea forfeited his right to appeal the denial, as it was a discretionary ruling on a procedural matter, not a jurisdictional defect. Further, the court reiterated that conditional pleas, where a defendant attempts to preserve appellate review of specific issues, are generally not permitted in New York. Taylor’s remedy, if any, regarding the voluntariness of his plea, lies in a post-conviction proceeding.

    Facts

    Taylor was indicted on murder and burglary charges. After a considerable delay (15 months after his initial not guilty plea), Taylor moved to file a late notice of intention to present psychiatric evidence as a defense. The trial court denied this motion, citing the delay and insufficient evidence supporting the proposed defense.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted Taylor based on his guilty plea to two counts of second-degree murder and one count of first-degree burglary. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. Taylor appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to file a late notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to file a late notice of intention to present psychiatric evidence is an issue that survives a guilty plea and can be raised on appeal.
    2. Whether a guilty plea can be expressly conditioned on the right to appeal a specific prior ruling, thereby preserving the right to appellate review of that issue.

    Holding

    1. No, because the trial court’s ruling on the late notice was a discretionary ruling on procedural timeliness, and the right to challenge it was forfeited by the guilty plea.
    2. No, because conditional pleas are generally not accepted in New York.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court’s decision to deny the late notice was a discretionary ruling concerning procedural timeliness, not a fundamental jurisdictional defect. The court emphasized that a guilty plea generally results in the forfeiture of the right to appeal prior non-jurisdictional rulings. Citing People v. Petgen, the court affirmed this long-standing principle. Furthermore, the court stated, “Generally, conditional pleas are not accepted in New York”. The court referenced precedents such as People v. Di Raffaele and People v. Thomas to support the prohibition against conditional pleas. The court noted that if Taylor believed his plea was not knowing or voluntary due to the denial of his motion, his recourse was to pursue a remedy under Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which governs post-conviction relief. The court did not discuss any dissenting or concurring opinions.

  • People v. Petgen, 69 N.Y.2d 687 (1986): Guilty Plea Forfeits Right to Suppress Evidence Absent Prior Order

    People v. Petgen, 69 N.Y.2d 687 (1986)

    A guilty plea generally results in the forfeiture of the right to appellate review of nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings, including the denial of a suppression motion, unless a final order denying the suppression motion was obtained before the plea.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant’s guilty plea forfeited his right to appellate review of the denial of his suppression motion because he pleaded guilty before obtaining a final order on the motion. The court reasoned that CPL 710.70(2), which provides an exception for reviewing suppression orders after a guilty plea, only applies if a final order denying the motion was issued before the plea. The court also noted that the defendant’s subjective belief that his plea would not result in forfeiture was irrelevant. By pleading guilty before the suppression hearing, the defendant also precluded the creation of a factual record necessary for appellate review.

    Facts

    The defendant was arrested and charged with a crime. He moved to suppress evidence, arguing that it was obtained illegally. However, before the court ruled on his suppression motion, the defendant entered a guilty plea.

    Procedural History

    The trial court accepted the defendant’s guilty plea. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a defendant who pleads guilty before obtaining a final order denying a motion to suppress evidence forfeits the right to appellate review of the suppression ruling under CPL 710.70(2)?

    Holding

    1. Yes, because CPL 710.70(2) provides a limited exception allowing review of suppression orders after a guilty plea only when a final order denying the motion was obtained before the plea. Furthermore, pleading guilty before the hearing precludes the creation of a record for appellate review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals stated that “[a] guilty plea generally results in a forfeiture of the right to appellate review of any nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings.” The court emphasized that CPL 710.70(2) carves out a limited exception allowing review of a suppression order after a guilty plea, but only if the order was obtained *before* the plea. The court rejected the argument that the defendant’s subjective belief about the plea’s consequences could override the law. The Court reasoned that allowing such subjective beliefs to dictate the outcome would permit “evasion of what otherwise would be the consequences of the plea.” The Court further noted that the defendant’s guilty plea, entered before the suppression hearing, prevented the creation of a factual record necessary for appellate review, relying on People v. Charleston. In essence, the Court emphasized the importance of adhering to established procedural rules and the consequences of failing to do so.