Opinion
2021–01946 S.C.I. No. 103/21
02-08-2023
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jose E. RODRIGUEZ, appellant.
Michael J. Miller, Miller Place, NY, for appellant. Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Kim Marie Carson of counsel), for respondent.
Michael J. Miller, Miller Place, NY, for appellant.
Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Kim Marie Carson of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Richard Ambro, J.), rendered February 25, 2021, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the plea is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on the Superior Court Information.
To be valid, a plea of guilty must be entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently (see People v. Mox, 20 N.Y.3d 936, 938, 958 N.Y.S.2d 670, 982 N.E.2d 590 ). Generally, a defendant must preserve for appellate review a challenge to the validity of a guilty plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). When, however, a "defendant's recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea," the court has a duty to inquire further to make sure that the defendant understands the nature of the charge and that the plea has been intelligently entered ( People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; see People v. Worden, 22 N.Y.3d 982, 984, 980 N.Y.S.2d 317, 3 N.E.3d 654 ; People v. Williams, 164 A.D.3d 624, 624, 78 N.Y.S.3d 673 ). Where the court failed in its duty to inquire further, a defendant may raise a claim regarding the validity of the plea even without having moved to withdraw the plea (see People v. Worden, 22 N.Y.3d at 985, 980 N.Y.S.2d 317, 3 N.E.3d 654 ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Williams, 164 A.D.3d at 625, 78 N.Y.S.3d 673 ).
In this case, the defendant's contention challenging the validity of his plea of guilty is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise that issue prior to the imposition of sentence (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Smith, 193 A.D.3d 986, 986, 142 N.Y.S.3d 834 ). However, the County Court's failure to inquire into the validity of the plea after the defendant's allocution raised the possibility of an affirmative defense based on duress (see Penal Law § 40.00 ) permits the defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the allocution on direct appeal, and requires reversal of the judgment of conviction (see People v. Williams, 164 A.D.3d at 625, 78 N.Y.S.3d 673 ; People v. Grason, 107 A.D.3d 1015, 1016, 966 N.Y.S.2d 882 ). The defendant's remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.
DILLON, J.P., CONNOLLY, CHAMBERS and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.