New York Law Review

Tag: Section 335-b

  • People v. Follette, 22 N.Y.2d 239 (1968): Timing Requirements for Prior Conviction Warnings

    22 N.Y.2d 239 (1968)

    Under former Section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the failure to provide a warning about the potential impact of prior convictions at the initial arraignment is not grounds for vacating a guilty plea if the warning was properly given before the guilty plea was accepted.

    Summary

    This case addresses the timing requirements of former Section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandated a warning to defendants about the potential impact of prior convictions on sentencing. The Court of Appeals held that the failure to provide this warning at the initial arraignment, where a not guilty plea was entered, did not invalidate a subsequent guilty plea, provided the warning was given before the guilty plea was accepted. The court emphasized that the statute’s purpose is to ensure defendants are aware of the potential sentencing consequences before waiving their right to trial, and that purpose is served if the warning precedes the guilty plea, even if omitted at the initial arraignment. The decision underscores the importance of the timing of procedural safeguards and their practical impact on a defendant’s decision-making process.

    Facts

    Four separate cases were consolidated for this appeal, each involving the application of Section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Gallagher, Butler, and Enright, the defendants were not given the statutory warning regarding prior convictions at their initial arraignments where they pleaded not guilty. They subsequently changed their pleas to guilty after receiving the required warning. In Shults, the defendant received the warning before pleading guilty to first-degree robbery, later withdrew that plea, and then pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery without a renewed warning.

    Procedural History

    The defendants, through habeas corpus petitions, challenged their convictions, arguing that the failure to provide the warning at the initial arraignment or, in Shults’ case, before the final guilty plea, warranted vacating their convictions. The lower courts denied the petitions. The cases were then consolidated for appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the failure to provide the warning required by former Section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure at a defendant’s initial arraignment, where a not guilty plea is entered, constitutes grounds for vacating a subsequent guilty plea entered after the warning was properly given.
    2. Whether, after a defendant pleads guilty with the proper warning, and is later permitted to withdraw that plea and plead guilty to a lesser charge, a new warning is required before accepting the second guilty plea.

    Holding

    1. No, because the purpose of Section 335-b is to ensure the defendant is aware of the potential consequences of a guilty plea before waiving their right to trial; this purpose is fulfilled if the warning precedes the guilty plea, even if omitted at the initial arraignment.
    2. No, because the defendant’s decision to waive the right to trial was already made with full knowledge of its implications when the initial guilty plea was entered with the proper warning.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the purpose of Section 335-b, as previously stated in People ex rel. Colan v. La Vallee, is “to afford an accused the opportunity of deciding whether to plead guilty, knowing he runs the risk of a more severe sentence, or to deny guilt and stand trial.” The court found that when a defendant initially pleads not guilty, a warning about prior convictions serves no purpose. The critical moment is before the defendant waives the right to trial by pleading guilty. As long as the warning is given before the guilty plea, the statute’s intent is satisfied. The court distinguished Shults, noting that because Shults initially pleaded guilty after receiving the warning, his subsequent plea to a lesser charge did not require a new warning, as his decision to waive trial had already been made with full knowledge. The court emphasized that “[t]he warning is not an empty ritual to be recited regardless of whether it has any meaning. It is designed to serve a specific purpose, and that purpose was fulfilled in each of the present cases.”

  • People ex rel. Gallagher v. Follette, 22 N.Y.2d 242 (1968): Adequacy of Warning Regarding Prior Convictions Before Guilty Plea

    People ex rel. Gallagher v. Follette, 22 N.Y.2d 242 (1968)

    A warning regarding the potential impact of prior convictions on sentencing, as required by former Section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is sufficient if given before the acceptance of a guilty plea, even if not given at the initial arraignment where a not-guilty plea was entered.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals consolidated several cases concerning the interpretation of former Section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which required a warning about the effect of prior convictions on sentencing. In each case, the defendant did not receive the warning at the initial arraignment but did receive it before pleading guilty. The court held that the warning was sufficient because the purpose of the statute – to allow a defendant to decide whether to plead guilty with knowledge of potential consequences – was satisfied when the warning preceded the guilty plea. Failure to warn at the initial arraignment, where a not-guilty plea was entered, was not prejudicial.

    Facts

    Several relators initially pleaded not guilty at their arraignments without receiving the warning required by Section 335-b regarding the impact of prior convictions on sentencing. Subsequently, each relator changed their plea to guilty to a lesser charge. Before accepting these guilty pleas, the court provided the full warning required by Section 335-b. One relator, Shults, initially pleaded guilty after receiving the warning, then withdrew the plea and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge without a renewed warning.

    Procedural History

    The relators, having been convicted, sought habeas corpus relief, arguing that the failure to provide the Section 335-b warning at their initial arraignments rendered their convictions void. The lower courts denied relief. The cases were consolidated on appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the failure to provide a Section 335-b warning at the initial arraignment, where a not-guilty plea was entered, invalidates a subsequent guilty plea entered after the warning was given.
    2. Whether a Section 335-b warning must be repeated before accepting a guilty plea entered after the defendant initially pleaded guilty and received the warning, but then withdrew the initial plea.

    Holding

    1. No, because the purpose of Section 335-b is satisfied when the warning is given before the acceptance of the guilty plea, allowing the defendant to make an informed decision about waiving the right to trial.
    2. No, because the defendant already made the decision to waive the right to trial with full knowledge of its implications when the initial guilty plea was entered after receiving the required warning.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the purpose of Section 335-b is “to afford an accused the opportunity of deciding whether to plead guilty, knowing he runs the risk of a more severe sentence, or to deny guilt and stand trial.” The court emphasized that if a defendant initially pleads not guilty, a warning about the consequences of a guilty plea would serve no purpose. The court stated, “The lack of a warning upon such an initial arraignment — at which a not guilty plea was entered—could not possibly have occasioned any harm or prejudice, and it is not a sufficient ground for vacating a later plea, made only after the defendant had been fully warned of the consequences.”

    Regarding Shults, the court distinguished this case from others where a warning was required before each guilty plea. Here, Shults had already received the warning and initially pleaded guilty. Allowing him to change his plea to a lesser charge did not necessitate a repeated warning because his decision to waive his right to trial had already been made with full knowledge of the consequences. As the court concluded, “[t]he warning is not an empty ritual to be recited regardless of whether it has any meaning. It is designed to serve a specific purpose, and that purpose was fulfilled in each of the present cases.”