Opinion
400 KA 16–01240
05-03-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Garfield HECTOR, Defendant–Appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (WILLIAM CLAUSS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (WILLIAM CLAUSS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIt is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law, the plea is vacated, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings on the indictment.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law former § 175.35). We agree with defendant that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see generally People v. Aloi, 78 A.D.3d 1546, 1547, 910 N.Y.S.2d 796 [4th Dept. 2010] ). Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review because "his motion to withdraw his plea was made on grounds different from those advanced on appeal" ( People v. Gibson, 140 A.D.3d 1786, 1787, 32 N.Y.S.3d 413 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1072, 47 N.Y.S.3d 231, 69 N.E.3d 1027 [2016] ), and this case does not fall within the "narrow exception" to the preservation rule ( People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ), we exercise our power to review defendant's contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see Aloi, 78 A.D.3d at 1547, 910 N.Y.S.2d 796 ).
"A trial court has the constitutional duty to ensure that a defendant, before pleading guilty, has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences" ( People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 402–403, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265 [1995] ; see Aloi, 78 A.D.3d at 1547, 910 N.Y.S.2d 796 ). After Supreme Court accepted defendant's guilty plea, defendant stated that he was confused by the plea proceeding, and the court asked him if he had any questions about the consequences of pleading guilty. Defendant then made a series of remarks from which it became apparent that he did not understand the nature of the crime to which he had entered his guilty plea. Although defendant was "obviously confused," the court made no further inquiry whether he understood the plea or its consequences ( People v. Sypnier, 300 A.D.2d 1061, 1061, 751 N.Y.S.2d 899 [4th Dept. 2002] ). We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment (see Aloi, 78 A.D.3d at 1547, 910 N.Y.S.2d 796 ; Sypnier, 300 A.D.2d at 1061, 751 N.Y.S.2d 899 ).In light of our determination, we do not consider defendant's remaining contentions.