In People v. Johnson (Ct. App. 5/4/2010) (Graffeo, J.), the defendant entered into a plea agreement: in exchanged for a guilty plea to Robbery 1º and a waiver of appeal, the defendant would be adjudicated a YO and received a maximum prison sentence of 1 to 4 years. At sentencing, the court announced that it could not honor the plea bargain because of the seriousness of the offense. Specifically, it found that YO status was not appropriate and the promised sentence was too short. Thus, the court gave the defendant a choice: withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial, or retain his guilty plea and receive a 5 year sentence (with PRS) without YO status. The defendant opted not to withdraw his plea. He was sentenced accordingly and then appealed.
The issue for the court was whether the appeal waiver survived the changed circumstances. The Court of Appeals held that it did not. "[W]hen defendant agreed to waive his right to appeal, he had no reason to
suspect that he would not be treated as a youthful offender or receive a
sentence in excess of the maximum that had been negotiated. ... Supreme Court's subsequent decision to modify the material terms
affecting sentencing therefore vitiated defendant's knowing and
intelligent entry of the waiver of appeal."
But what about the guilty plea itself? Was it not also invalid by the decision of the court not to honor the promised sentence? No. The defendant's "choice not to withdraw his plea effectively reaffirmed his knowing and intelligent consent to concede guilt."
As a practical matter, the result in this case means that the defendant can ask the Appellate Division to modify the sentence, in an exercise of its interest-of-justice power, by imposing YO status and a lower sentence. (LC)
Comments