People v. Jones, 63 N.Y.2d 640 (1984)

Off-the-record sentencing advice given by counsel to a defendant, even if erroneous, is not entitled to judicial recognition as a basis for withdrawing a guilty plea.

Summary

Defendant Jones pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery. He later sought to withdraw his plea, arguing his counsel incorrectly advised him regarding “good time” credit, which induced the plea. The sentencing court denied his motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, ordering a hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that off-the-record advice from counsel, even if inaccurate, does not provide grounds for withdrawing a guilty plea. The court reasoned that reliance on the record is essential to ensure the finality of guilty pleas and that claims of ineffective assistance should be raised in a post-trial application.

Facts

Defendant Jones was indicted on multiple charges, including kidnapping, burglary, and robbery. He pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery. Prior to sentencing, Jones’s counsel informed him off-the-record that he would receive credit for time served in jail and “good time” credit, making him eligible for parole sooner than he actually would be. This advice turned out to be incorrect.

Procedural History

The sentencing court denied Jones’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to a 4 1/2-to 13 1/2-year prison term. The Appellate Division reversed, vacated the sentence, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether to permit withdrawal of the plea. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, remitting the case for a determination of the facts.

Issue(s)

Whether a defendant should be allowed to withdraw a guilty plea based on erroneous, off-the-record sentencing advice from his attorney regarding “good time” credit.

Holding

No, because the judge to whom the motion to vacate is addressed should be able to rely on the record before him in order to ensure that guilty pleas are accorded finality whenever possible.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of relying on the record to ensure the finality of guilty pleas. It extended the rationale from cases involving alleged off-the-record promises by the sentencing court to situations involving misadvice from defense counsel. The court stated, “[T]he Judge to whom the motion to vacate is addressed should be entitled to rely on the record before him in order to insure that guilty pleas are accorded finality whenever possible.” Because the defense counsel’s misadvice was not on the record, it was not entitled to judicial recognition. The court also noted that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be raised in post-trial applications. Regarding federal constitutional arguments, the court cited Hunter v. Fogg, limiting United States ex rel. Hill v. Ternullo, and holding that informing a defendant of the minimum portion of a sentence a court may require him to serve is not constitutionally required for a state court guilty plea.