In People v. Lopez (1st Dept. 11/13/08), the First Department overturned a defendant's conviction for Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree and Robbery in the Third Degree on the basis that the trial court's plea colloquy was insufficient:
The plea was involuntary because, at the plea allocution, once again there was no mention of any of the rights defendant would be waiving by pleading guilty, including his right to a jury trial, his right of confrontation and his right against self-incrimination (see People v Colon, 42 AD3d 411 [2007]). Since defendant's plea was invalid, his waiver of the right to appeal is also invalid.
(emphasis added). I was intrigued by the court's use of the term "once again." Initially, I thought perhaps the case had been up on appeal earlier. In fact, it appears the court was referring to the trial judge, who was the subject of the cited case, Colon. There, the same issue was present -- a lack of adequate plea colloquy. Same judge. There, the court characterized the colloquy as "woefully deficient." Interestingly, the two judgments were rendered five years apart (2002 in Colon; 2007 in Lopez). For those who might be quick to judge the judge for not learning his lesson, consider that Colon was decided several months after the judgment was rendered in Lopez. And, let's not forget that, in each case, a prosecutor and defense attorney stood by -- apparently silently -- while the plea was taken. (LC)
I noticed that little swipe at the plea judge too. they seem more willing to do stuff like that these days.
Posted by: 4train | November 18, 2008 at 11:26 PM