Opinion
LT 054378 2.
Decided July 19, 2005.
Associate City Judge of Mount Vernon, Corporation Counsel, City of Mount Vernon City Hall, Mount Vernon, New York.
Richard Roberts, Esq., Mt. Vernon, New York, Attorney for Defendant.
On June 29, 2004, Police Officer Martinez of the Mount Vernon Police Department issued the defendant a simplified traffic information for violating VTL § 1225-c (2)(a) (use of hand held mobile phone on a public highway). The defendant, having previously entered a plea of guilty to the charge, now makes this motion seeking to vacate her guilty plea. The People oppose the motion.
On this motion, the defendant contends that at the time of the plea, she was not aware of the true ramifications of her guilty plea, either in view of the status of her driver's license at the time or in the future with regard to any points on her license. She alleges that she called this Court seeking information on how to protest the ticket and that a court clerk informed her that the reasons for the use of her cell phone would not matter. She further contends that a clerk advised her that she could check the box "guilty" on the ticket and send a money order for $70 within 60 days. The defendant asserts that due to her financial inability to consult an attorney, she checked the guilty box on the back of the ticket, purchased a money order, and mailed them both to the Court.
Ms. Smith states that in September 2003, her license was restricted as a result of a lapse in automobile insurance. On May 12, 2005, she received an Order of Suspension from the Department of Motor Vehicles, noting that her driver's license wound be suspended as of June 11, 2005 because she was "convicted on 9/3/04 in the above named court on a charge of operation of a motor vehicle while using a hand held mobile phone. . . . and the violation occurred while in restricted use license status" (Order to Show Cause P. 10). She argues that she was not aware in June 2004, that by checking "guilty" on the ticket that she was violating her restricted use status to the extent that her license would be suspended or revoked. She now requests that her plea be withdrawn because she did not know the consequences of her actions. Defendant further contends that on the day in question, her son had an accident, thereby sustaining a chipped tooth and scrapes and bruises. She argues that she was making an emergency call to her son's pediatrician and his dentist to find out if she could make an emergency appointment at the time the officer observed her put the cell phone to her ear and pulled her over.
When a defendant pleads guilty, the Court has an obligation to ensure that the defendant's plea is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. To ensure that a Vehicle and Traffic Law guilty plea is properly entered, the court must inform the defendant of the rights surrendered by forgoing a trial and pleading guilty (( People v. Tinort, 5 Misc 3d 238 (Sup.Ct. NY Co. 2004); VTL § 1807). The failure to warn of collateral consequences, including the revocation or suspension of a driver's license will not warrant vacating a plea because they are peculiar to the individual and result from the action of an agency the Court does not control ( People v. Tinort, supra at 240; People v. Hyman, 81 Misc 2d 858 (Crim.Ct. Kings Co. 1975)).
Here, the Court finds that its duty to inform the defendant of the consequences of her guilty plea was clearly met. A look at the back of the traffic summons shows that the defendant was advised of the consequences of her guilty plea. In accord with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1807, the summons advises:
"A plea of guilty to this charge is equivalent to a conviction after trial. If you are convicted, not only will you be liable to a penalty, but in addition your license to drive a motor vehicle or motorcycle, and your certificate of registration, if any, are subject to suspension and revocation as prescribed by law."
The defendant, proceeding pro se, endorsed her signature in the guilty box on the back of the ticket where the above language appeared. The defendant elected to represent herself, and part of her duty was to make herself completely aware of the possible consequences. Although the typical pro se defendant may lack certain legal skills, mere ignorance of the law (or its consequences) is no excuse ( People v. Hyman, supra at 861). Further, the Court had no duty to inform the defendant, knowing that she was driving with a restricted use license, that a guilty plea would result in the mandatory suspension of her driver's license. Loss of a driver's license is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea, resulting from the action of the Department of Motor Vehicles, an agency over which this Court has no power or control.
Upon consideration of all the circumstances, this Court finds that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly and voluntarily made. Furthermore, the defendant was made sufficiently aware of the possible consequence of a guilty plea. As the Department of Motor Vehicles suspended the defendant's license, any further attempts to restore said license should be directed to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.
The defendant's motion to vacate her plea is therefore denied.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.