New York Law Review

Tag: sentencing errors

  • People v. Scott, 2025 NY Slip Op 01562: Plea Voluntariness when Sentencing Information is Erroneous

    2025 NY Slip Op 01562

    A guilty plea is involuntary if a court provides inaccurate information about a defendant’s sentencing exposure, especially when the misinformation is significantly higher than the statutorily permitted maximum.

    Summary

    Marquese Scott pleaded guilty to three counts of burglary, but the trial court repeatedly and incorrectly informed him that he faced a maximum sentence of 45 years if convicted at trial, when the statutory maximum was 20 years. The New York Court of Appeals held that Scott’s guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the court’s misinformation about his potential sentence created an unduly coercive environment. The court emphasized that a plea must be a free and informed choice, considering the totality of the circumstances. Due to the significant disparity between the court’s stated potential sentence and the actual maximum, the plea was deemed invalid, and the case was remitted for further proceedings.

    Facts

    Marquese Scott, aged 23, was charged with three counts of burglary in the second degree. The prosecution initially indicated Scott faced up to 15 years on each count with a potential 45-year consecutive sentence. A plea deal was offered: if Scott pleaded guilty, he would be sentenced to 6 to 8 years. The court, however, misinformed Scott several times, stating he faced a maximum of 45 years if convicted. Scott pleaded guilty, stating he understood the potential 15-year sentences per count. At sentencing, the court imposed an enhanced sentence of 5 years on each count, for a total of 15 years, followed by 5 years of post-release supervision, despite the original agreement. The court’s misstatement of the maximum potential sentence was in error because Penal Law 70.30(1)(e)(i) capped Scott’s aggregate sentence at 20 years.

    Procedural History

    Scott was indicted on three counts of burglary. He subsequently appeared with counsel to discuss a plea agreement. After the trial court made several erroneous statements regarding his potential sentence, Scott pleaded guilty. He was later sentenced to an enhanced sentence. Scott appealed, claiming his plea was involuntary due to the court’s misstatements, but the Appellate Division deemed the claim unpreserved, reducing the sentence but not addressing the plea’s voluntariness. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Scott’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, given the court’s erroneous statements about his potential maximum sentence.
    2. Whether Scott was required to preserve the challenge to his guilty plea by moving to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the court’s misinformation about the potential sentence created an environment where the plea was not a free and informed choice.
    2. No, because when a court provides the defendant with erroneous information concerning their maximum sentencing exposure, that is contrary to the undisputed text of the Penal Law, fails to correct its error on the record, and the defendant has no apparent reason to question the accuracy of that information, the defendant need not preserve a challenge to the voluntariness of the guilty plea.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court held that a guilty plea must be entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently and must represent an informed choice. This depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the agreement, the reasonableness of the bargain, and the age and experience of the accused. The court found that the trial court’s error in misinforming Scott that he faced 45 years (versus the actual 20-year maximum) rendered the plea involuntary, due to a severe misrepresentation of the risks. The court distinguished the case from People v. Williams, where the court had expressed uncertainty about the sentencing options. The court determined that the defendant did not need to preserve the issue, as the error was clear from the record.

    Practical Implications

    This case emphasizes that trial courts must accurately inform defendants about their potential sentencing exposure during plea proceedings. This case significantly reinforces the requirement for accurate information in plea bargains. Attorneys must thoroughly review the statutes to ensure accuracy, especially in cases involving multiple charges or consecutive sentencing. The case also supports the need for a thorough plea colloquy, and for the court to correct its own errors. The ruling suggests a careful review of the plea colloquy is critical, as any misstatements could invalidate a guilty plea and lead to a retrial. Moreover, this case potentially eliminates the need for a CPL 440 motion and allows a direct appeal.

  • People v. Williams, No. 36 (N.Y. 2016): Preservation of Challenges to Plea Voluntariness in Light of Sentencing Errors

    People v. Williams, No. 36, 2016 N.Y. Lexis 650 (2016)

    A defendant must preserve a challenge to the voluntariness of a guilty plea by objecting in the trial court, even if the challenge is based on an alleged due process violation arising from an illegal sentencing promise, unless the defendant lacked a practical ability to object.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant preserved his challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea when the plea was allegedly induced by the promise of an illegal sentence. The court held that the defendant did not preserve his claim because he had multiple opportunities to object to the plea in the trial court, and his failure to do so precluded appellate review. The court reiterated the importance of the preservation doctrine in criminal cases, while clarifying that exceptions to the doctrine, such as those outlined in People v. Lopez and People v. Louree, apply only when a defendant lacks a practical ability to object. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, which had vacated the guilty plea on the grounds of a due process violation, and remitted the case for consideration of the facts and issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that court.

    Facts

    Christian Williams was arrested and indicted on drug sale charges. He entered into a plea bargain where he would plead guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in exchange for a recommended sentence of three years in prison and two years of post-release supervision. During the plea colloquy, the court informed Williams of the sentence, potential maximum sentence based on his criminal history, and the conditions of the plea. However, because Williams was a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, the court should have informed him that he faced a statutory sentencing range of six to fifteen years in prison, rather than three years. Williams was subsequently arrested for marijuana and trespass offenses, which led to a hearing to determine if he had violated the plea agreement. After the hearing, the court found that Williams violated the terms of his plea agreement. At sentencing, the court imposed a six-year prison term and two years of post-release supervision. Williams appealed, arguing that the plea was induced by an illegal sentencing promise.

    Procedural History

    After being arrested and indicted, Williams entered a guilty plea in exchange for a three-year prison sentence and two years of post-release supervision. The Supreme Court found that Williams had violated the plea agreement and sentenced him to six years. Williams appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, vacated the guilty plea, and remanded the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. The People were granted leave to appeal the Appellate Division's decision to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Williams preserved his challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea for appellate review, despite the absence of an objection to the plea in the trial court.

    Holding

    1. No, because Williams had a reasonable opportunity to attack the legality of his guilty plea in the trial court, and because he did not take advantage of that opportunity, he failed to preserve his claim for appellate review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court emphasized the importance of the preservation doctrine in criminal cases, citing numerous prior cases that enforced the requirement of a timely objection at the trial level to preserve issues for appeal. The court distinguished the case from People v. Lopez, where the defendant's factual recitation clearly cast doubt on his guilt, and People v. Louree, where the defendant had no practical ability to object. The Court of Appeals found that the exception in Louree did not categorically exempt due process claims from the preservation rule. The court found that, in this case, Williams had multiple opportunities to challenge the plea’s legality before sentencing. The court reasoned that by failing to object at these stages, Williams did not preserve his claim. The court pointed out that the defense could have inquired into the legality of the sentence or demanded the court honor the promise, but failed to do so. Therefore, his claim was not preserved for review.

    Practical Implications

    This case underscores the importance of the preservation doctrine in New York criminal procedure. Attorneys must be diligent in making timely objections to preserve issues for appeal. The case clarifies that even when a defendant alleges a due process violation based on a sentencing error, a failure to object will generally preclude appellate review unless the defendant lacked a practical opportunity to object. The case provides guidance on the narrowness of the exceptions to the preservation rule. Criminal defense attorneys must actively question potential sentencing errors during plea colloquies and sentencing proceedings. If the court makes any statements about the potential sentence that may be incorrect, such as failing to accurately describe the statutory range or making an illegal sentencing promise, defense counsel should immediately object and seek clarification. Failing to do so will likely result in waiver of any later challenge on appeal.