People v. Johnson, 89 N.Y.2d 905 (1996)

A guilty plea to a crime that is neither charged in the indictment nor a lesser included offense of a charged crime is invalid, undermining the statutory framework governing plea bargains.

Summary

Johnson was convicted of attempted aggravated assault under one indictment. Separately, he pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance to satisfy charges of criminal possession of a controlled substance under a second, unrelated indictment. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept the guilty plea to criminal sale because it was not a lesser included offense of criminal possession, and no factual relationship existed between the sale and possession charges. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory limitations on guilty pleas outlined in CPL Article 220 to maintain the integrity of the plea bargaining process.

Facts

Johnson was charged under two separate indictments. The first indictment concerned charges for attempted aggravated assault, resulting in a conviction. The second indictment contained charges for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees. Instead of proceeding to trial on the possession charges, Johnson pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which was intended to satisfy the second indictment entirely. The plea colloquy did not reveal any factual connection between the criminal sale and the criminal possession counts, except that the offenses occurred on the same date and involved cocaine.

Procedural History

The Appellate Division affirmed Johnson’s conviction under both indictments. Two justices dissented regarding the second indictment, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept the guilty plea to criminal sale, as it was not a lesser included offense of the possession charges. A Justice of the Appellate Division granted Johnson leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a trial court has jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea to an offense (criminal sale of a controlled substance) that is not charged in the indictment and is not a lesser included offense of the crimes charged (criminal possession of a controlled substance), when there is no apparent factual relationship between the offenses.

Holding

Yes, because CPL Article 220 strictly governs the acceptance of guilty pleas, and the plea to criminal sale violated these constraints as it was neither a charged offense nor a lesser included offense of the charged possession crimes. The plea colloquy did not establish any factual connection that would justify the acceptance of the plea.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals based its decision on the provisions of CPL Article 220, which govern the acceptance of guilty pleas. The Court emphasized that CPL 220.10 specifies that “[t]he only kinds of pleas which may be entered to an indictment are those specified in this section.” Under CPL 220.10(4), a defendant may only plead guilty to one or more of the offenses charged or to lesser included offenses. Criminal sale is not a lesser included offense of criminal possession under the general statutory definition (CPL 1.20[37]) or under the specific extensions listed in CPL 220.20(1)(i). The court acknowledged two narrow exceptions to these restrictions established in People v. Foster, 19 N.Y.2d 150 (1967), but determined that these exceptions were not applicable in this case. Expanding these exceptions, the Court reasoned, would undermine the legislative policy of limiting plea bargains to offenses directly related to the charges. The Court stated, “A different result would undermine the legislative policy of article 220 to place limitations on plea bargains deviating from the crimes charged.”