People v. Lockett, 60 N.Y.2d 850 (1983)

A defense counsel’s miscalculation regarding the minimum sentence during plea negotiations does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel unless the representation falls below the standard of reasonable competence; however, a sentence imposed based on an incorrect predicate felony status is illegal and requires resentencing.

Summary

The defendant pleaded guilty to robbery, and during plea negotiations, counsel mistakenly believed a particular sentence was the minimum. The sentence was imposed as a second violent felony offender, but the predicate offense was not designated violent until after the robbery. The Court of Appeals held that the counsel’s error was not ineffective assistance, as the representation met a standard of reasonable competence. However, the court also determined that the sentence was illegal because the predicate offense was incorrectly classified and thus remanded for resentencing.

Facts

The defendant committed a robbery. During plea negotiations, the defendant’s counsel, along with the trial judge and the prosecution, mistakenly believed that the bargained-for sentence was the minimum possible sentence. The defendant pleaded guilty, and the sentence was imposed based on the defendant being a second violent felony offender. However, the predicate offense was not classified as a violent felony until 24 days after the defendant committed the robbery.

Procedural History

The case was appealed to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division’s order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defense counsel’s mistake regarding the minimum sentence during plea negotiations constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.

2. Whether a sentence imposed based on an incorrect predicate felony status is illegal.

Holding

1. No, because the mistake of counsel with respect to the minimum sentence does not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel.

2. Yes, because the sentence was imposed as a second violent felony offender although the predicate offense was not designated a violent felony until after defendant committed the robbery.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the Court of Appeals applied the standard of “reasonable competence,” stating it is “not perfect representation.” The court noted that the bargained-for sentence was substantially less than the maximum, and all parties were under the same misapprehension. The court implicitly found that the mistake did not prejudice the defendant, or undermine the fairness of the proceedings. Regarding the illegal sentence, the court found that because the predicate offense was not yet classified as a violent felony when the defendant committed the robbery, sentencing the defendant as a second violent felony offender was illegal. The Court relied on the factual timeline to reach this conclusion. The court acknowledged the People’s concession on oral argument that a remand for resentencing was necessary, implying a potential waiver or lack of opposition from the prosecution on this point. No dissenting or concurring opinions were noted in the memorandum decision.