People v. Antoine, 2009 NY Slip Op 31487(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 5/21/2009)
| Decision Date | 21 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | 7093/02 |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 31487 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, v. TED ANTOINE, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Page 1
v.
TED ANTOINE, Defendant.
JILL KONVISER, JUSTICE:
On October 4, 2002, the defendant shot and killed Reynold Guerrier in front of Guerrier's young son and another eyewitness. The defendant admitted to the killing in written and videotaped confessions. On October 16, 2003, the defendant pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree, (Penal Law § 125.25[2]), before a now retired judge, with the understanding that he would be sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of fifteen years to life. On November 7,2003, the promised sentence was imposed. On February 10, 2009, the defendant's conviction was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department. See People v. Antoine, 59 A.D.3d 560 (2d Dept. 2009).
The defendant has now filed a pro se motion to vacate the judgment of conviction under Criminal Procedure Law §440.10 on the grounds that: (1) his guilty plea was involuntary and coerced by the Court; (2) the Court failed to advise him adequately of the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty; (3) the plea allocution was insufficient to show that the defendant meant to plead guilty to depraved indifference murder; (4) the circumstances surrounding his killing of Guerrier did not constitute depraved indifference murder; and, (5) counsel provided him with ineffective representation in connection with his guilty plea. The People filed an affirmation and memorandum of law in opposition to the defendant's motion. For the reasons that follow, the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of conviction is denied without a hearing.
Procedural History
Page 2
On the morning of October 4, 2002, the defendant shot and killed Reynold Guerrier, his mother' s boyfriend, in front of two eyewitnesses, one of whom was Guerrier' s young son; he later fully confessed to the shooting in written and videotaped statements. The defendant effectuated this crime by slashing the tires on Guerrier's car the night before the shooting to insure that Guerrier would not be able to leave his home. The morning after the defendant slashed Guerrier's tires, he waited on the street outside of Guerrier's home and shot and killed him at close range. The defendant admitted in his written statement to the police that he "pulled out the gun, pointed it at" Guerrier and "shot it" at him "because of all the anger I had for him [Guerrier] over the years from all the abuse[.]" The defendant, who was seventeen years old at the time of the shooting, explained in his written statement that the abuse had ended four years before the shooting.1
The defendant was charged by a grand jury with two counts of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. On October 16,2003, after a suppression hearing was held, the trial court ruled that the defendant's written statement, videotaped statement, and lineup identification would be admissible at trial. Thereafter, the trial court asked the defendant whether he wished to plead guilty or proceed to trial. After a bench conference with the attorneys, the trial court told the defendant that the People were unwilling to reduce the charges against him, which included two counts of murder in the second degree. The trial court however, told the defendant, that it was "prepared to offer... the least the law could give you for the crime of this nature [murder in the second degree], which is fifteen years to life. That is the only offer I could make you." Transcript at 4. The trial court explained to the defendant that it would accept a guilty plea to murder
Page 3
in the second degree only if the defendant admitted committing the crime.
The record shows that the trial court had an extensive discussion with the defendant emphasizing that it was his choice whether to plead guilty or proceed to trial. If he rejected the plea, the trial court told the defendant that he would receive a fair trial. The trial court also discussed the strength of the People's case and explained to the defendant, inter alia, that based on the anticipated testimony from two eyewitnesses who would identify him in court as the shooter and his written and videotaped statements in which he confessed to the shooting, that the People had "a lot of evidence" against him and had a "strong case" Transcript at 4, 8.2 Indeed, the trial court informed the defendant that it would be difficult for him to persuade the jury that he was lying when he confessed to the police or that it was not in fact him who had made the confessions. The trial court also explained the risks of going to trial and emphasized that while the defendant could still receive a sentence of fifteen years to life if convicted after trial, he could possibly receive a higher sentence based on additional information regarding the case learned by the trial court during the course of the trial. Transcript at 4-9.
The defendant initially informed the trial court, through counsel, that he was "hesitant to take the plea because he didn't do it." Transcript at 6. Immediately prior to the anticipated entrance into the courtroom of a panel of prospective jurors, however, the defendant informed the trial court that he wished to plead guilty and that he in fact "did it." Transcript at 9. Thereafter, the following colloquy ensued:
Page 4
The Court: Mr. Antoine, stand up for a minute please. I want you to be sure you understand my questions and that when you're answering them you're answering them truthfully. What is your name?
The Defendant: Ted Antoine
The Court: How old are you?
The Defendant: Eighteen.
The Court: How far did you go in school?
The Defendant: About ninth grade.
The Court: [Defense counsel] ... is your lawyer; is that right?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: You were talking about this case and about this plea?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: Now, you understand that we have a jury standing out in the hall. If we wanted to we could start the trial. We had the hearing. We heard your statement. We are prepared to bring in a jury and try to select a jury that will give you a fair and impartial trial. Do you understand we are ready to do that?
The Defendant: I understand.
The Court: Do you understand when the jury comes in we tell them that you're denying your guilt. We don't tell them anything about the statement or anything like that. We select a jury and that jury will hear the evidence in this case and decide whether the District Attorney presented evidence that convinces them beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty; do you understand that?
Page 5
The Defendant: Yes, I know.
The Court: Do you want to have a trial?
The Defendant: No.
The Court: You want to plead guilty?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: Are you pleading guilty voluntarily?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: Has anyone threatened you or influenced you to plead guilty?
The Defendant: No.
The Court: If you want me to accept the plea and give you the promised sentence of fifteen years to life then you have to tell me about the crime you committed. What happened?
The Defendant: I came up to my stepfather and shot him.
The Court: You came up to him and what?
The Defendant: I shot him.
The Court: You killed him?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: Did you intend to kill him?
The Defendant: No.
The Court: What did you do? You pulled the trigger?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: You understand pulling the trigger when somebody is at close range is what we call depraved indifference murder. In other words,
Page 6
a reasonable person wouldn't do that under that kind of circumstance; do you understand that?
The Defendant: Yes
The Court:So even if you didn't intend to do it the way you came out, you acted under circumstances that would show that you didn't obey the common laws of decency or the common laws of cautious behavior; do you understand?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: Is that true?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: Where did this happen?
The Defendant: Avenue D.
The Court: And who was the person you killed?
The Defendant: Reynold Guerrier.
The Court: What was he to you?
The Defendant: My younger brother's father.
The Court: Was he your stepfather?
The Defendant: No.
The Court: He was not your stepfather?
The Defendant: No. He didn't get married to my mother.
The Court: I beg your pardon?
The Defendant: He didn't get married to my mother.
Transcript at 10-14. The case was then adjourned until November 7,2003 when the promised sentence of fifteen years to life was imposed.
Page 7
In April 2008 the defendant, through appellate counsel, filed a brief in the Appellate Division, Second Department in which he argued that his guilty plea was involuntary as it was induced by misleading and coercive statements made by the trial court. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the trial court coerced his guilty plea by misleading him about the strength of the People's case. The defendant argued that the trial court, in its discussions with the defendant prior to the entry of the plea, ignored the possibility that the circumstances of the shooting showed that the defendant was guilty of a less culpable offense such as manslaughter in the first or second degree and, instead, falsely led him to believe that his confessions to the crime and the anticipated testimony identifying him as the shooter would likely result in a murder conviction if he went to trial.
The defendant further claimed in his appellate brief: (1) that his plea was not knowing and voluntary as the Court failed adequately to inform him of the rights that he was giving up by pleading guilty; (2) the plea allocution was insufficient to show that the defendant meant to plead guilty to depraved indifference murder and the Court's misleading statements during the allocution caused him to plead guilty to murder; and, (3) the circumstances of the shooting did...
To continue reading
Request your trial