In People v. Brown (Ct. App. 2/18/2010) (Lippman, C.J.), the defendant was charged with Robbery 3º and Grand Larceny 4º. From the onset, the defendant maintained his innocence. Nevertheless, on June 29, 2005, the defendant entered a guilty plea. On appeal, he argued argued that he was coerced into entering a plea of guilty. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the conviction.
From the time of arrest, the defendant remained under custody because he was unable to make bail. Shortly after his indictment, he learned that his son was critically injured by gunshot wounds he sustained and that his son had fallen into a coma. "At the outset of the next court appearance, the court informed defendant that a proposed plea bargain would require him to plead guilty to both counts of the indictment in exchange for a 2 to 4 year sentence, and then stated, '[y]our attorney told me [that] you were interested in taking the plea if I were to give you a furlough for three weeks to allow you to see your sick child,' who was still in the hospital. Defendant responded in the affirmative, and the court agreed to the furlough, warning defendant that if he did not appear on the scheduled date, he would receive an increased sentence."
Defendant surrendered on the scheduled date and later moved to withdraw his plea. He argued that his plea was made under duress and as a result of emotional and mental distress caused by his perception of his son's impending death. Furthermore, the defendant indicated in his motion that, prior to entering his guilty plea, jail officials denied his request to visit his ailing son. This request was denied based on the mistaken belief that his son's condition was not serious. It was only after the defendant pleaded guilty that officials allowed him to visit his son.The Court of Appeals indicated that when the legitimacy of the voluntariness of a plea is questionable, an evidentiary hearing is required. Here, based on the fact that nothing in the record indicated that the defendant had sufficient time to consider the plea or alternatives, no discussion of the impact of the furlough on the defendant's plea occurred, and no indication of the voluntariness of defendant's decision to enter a guilty plea was present, the court found that a hearing was required. The court made clear that admitting guilt to a charged crime is not dispositive, since it does not speak to the voluntariness or involuntariness of the allocution. A plea bargain granting a furlough,moreover, is not per se invalid. If the totality of the circumstances reveals that the plea is voluntary and knowingly and intelligently made, then it will be upheld. When a defendant fails to raise a legitimate question as to the voluntariness of the plea, a court may deny the motion without a hearing. When, as here, a defendant raises a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the voluntariness of the plea, a hearing is mandatory. Accordingly, the case was remitted for a hearing. (DAL/LC)
Comments