From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Benjamin

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 22, 2009
24 Misc. 3d 103 (N.Y. App. Term 2009)

Opinion

No. 570369/08.

July 22, 2009.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.; see 19 Misc 3d 1133[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50986[U]), rendered February 1, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

Patricia A. Pileggi, New York City, for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City ( Allen J. Vickey and Sheila O'Shea of counsel), for respondent.

McKEON, P.J., SCHOENFELD and HEITLER, JJ., concur.


OPINION OF THE COURT


Judgment of conviction, rendered February 1, 2008, reversed, on the law, the plea vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The statements made by defense counsel on defendant's behalf and in his presence during the plea proceedings, negating the intent element of the underlying governmental obstruction charge and reflecting counsel's view that defendant was not "doing anything wrong" prior to his arrest, cast sufficient doubt on defendant's guilt as to trigger the court's obligation to make further inquiry of the defendant to ensure that defendant understood the nature of the charge and that the plea was intelligently entered ( see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; People v Lawrence, 192 AD2d 332, lv denied 81 NY2d 1075; see and compare People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295 [defense counsel's statements relied upon to establish voluntariness of guilty plea]). The court's inquiry merely consisted of eliciting terse affirmative responses as to whether defendant was "in fact" guilty to the (unexplained) obstruction charge and whether defendant's plea was voluntary and of his "own free will." In this posture, and taking into account the plea proceedings as a whole, it cannot be said that defendant's guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. We note that defendant's persuasive challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution is properly reviewable on direct appeal ( see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666).


Summaries of

People v. Benjamin

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 22, 2009
24 Misc. 3d 103 (N.Y. App. Term 2009)
Case details for

People v. Benjamin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HOAGY BENJAMIN…

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jul 22, 2009

Citations

24 Misc. 3d 103 (N.Y. App. Term 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 29312
885 N.Y.S.2d 141

Citing Cases

People v. Serrano

014] ; People v. Domin, 42 Misc.3d 149[A], 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 50403 [U], 2014 WL 1096664 [App.Term, 9th &…

People v. Serrano

Thus, as the Criminal Court "made no effort to explain the consequences of a guilty plea" by not stating the…