People v. Bachus
| Decision Date | 10 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 20-1165 |
| Citation | 74 Misc.3d 800,162 N.Y.S.3d 687 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Stephon BACHUS, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Colin Lynch, Esq. for the People of the State of New York, District Attorneys Office.
Annaleigh Porter, Esq. for the Defendant.
The Defendant, Stephon Bachus, has made a Motion for an Order Compelling Reinstatement of the September 11, 2020 Plea Offer in the above captioned matter.
Defense counsel contends that pursuant to CPL 245.20(1) the People are required to disclose all information discoverable under that section "before certain kinds of pleas." Defense counsel cites People v. McConnell , 49 N.Y.2d 340, 349, 425 N.Y.S.2d 794, 402 N.E.2d 133 [1980], that "should it come to be believed that the State can renege on its plea bargains ..." that there would be a "detrimental effect on the criminal justice system" which would result. The McConnell case is based on a vastly different set of circumstances ( Id. ) In that case, the judge reneged on a promise based upon the defendant's testimony ( Id. ). When the Defendant returned to get the promised sentence, after testifying to his detriment, the judge refused to honor the plea negotiation ( Id. ) That is not the case here.
The portion of the transcript relating to September 11, 2020 appearance (as annexed to the defense counsel's motion) shows that there was some discussion off the record between the prosecutor and defense counsel resulting in a downward deviation from an original plea offer made by the People. ADA Lynch states "I would be willing to come down to five years incarceration with a four year post release supervision." He goes on to state that he wished to put the new offer on the record to "see if the Defendant was willing to accept that offer, or we were going to proceed with the hearing." The defense counsel then goes on the record to reject the offer. The record is clear to the Court that the offer is good if the hearing does not proceed.
Defense counsel argues that the results of the DNA analysis would have been helpful in assisting defense counsel in advising the defendant regarding the offer on September 11, 2020. The Court does not deny it may have been helpful. However, the DNA test was not done on that date. In fact the People's motion to compel the defendant to give a DNA sample was granted on December 5, 2020. The DNA test in this matter was not required to prove the People's case but was done to enhance their case. Further, the DNA evidence was, in fact, disclosed in accordance with the provisions of CPL 245.20[1][I]. Namely, the People received the results of the DNA test and on the same date, June 27,...
To continue reading
Request your trial