People v. Martin C.
| Decision Date | 19 February 1981 |
| Citation | 107 Misc.2d 1007,436 N.Y.S.2d 524 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN C. * , Defendant. |
| Court | New York Justice Court |
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty. of Westchester County, for plaintiff.
Eisenberg & Eade, White Plains, for defendant; Richard D. Eade, White Plains, of counsel.
DECISION and OPINION
Defendant moves for the return of his fingerprints and photographs, and for the sealing of his file pursuant to CPL 160.50.
On April 10, 1979, on motion of the defendant and with the consent of the People, defendant was granted an ACD by this Court. Prior to the People's consent, defendant executed a written form waiver of the provisions of CPL 160.50 regarding the return of fingerprints, photographs and sealing the file, with the advice and in the presence of counsel. 1 On October 9, 1979, the charges against the defendant were dismissed pursuant to CPL 170.55 by operation of law. On June 25, 1980, defendant made the instant application which was adjourned from time to time at the request of both parties and finally was submitted for Court decision on February 3, 198l.
Notwithstanding his express written waiver, defendant claims that CPL 160.50 mandates the return of fingerprints and the sealing of records and further, that the waiver took place under circumstances as to vitiate the effect of the waiver. The District Attorney opposes the application on the grounds that the waiver was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made during plea bargaining negotiations.
The District Attorney is correct in his position that the Supreme Court of the United States allows the waiver of such rights as the right to trial by jury (McCarthy v. U.S.,394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418), to confront an accuser and to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination (see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274), that plea bargaining flows from the mutuality of advantage to defendant and prosecutor each with his own reason for wanting to avoid trial (Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747) and if a constitutional right may be waived, a statutory right may likewise be waived (People v. Williams, 36 N.Y.2d 829, 370 N.Y.S.2d 904, 331 N.E.2d 684).
Plea bargaining in New York has been approved in People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, 233, 360 N.Y.S.2d 623, 318 N.E.2d 784 for its effect in reducing overcrowded dockets in budget-starved criminal courts, in removal of both parties from the risks and uncertainties of trial, in commencing the rehabilitation of the offender, in serving law enforcement by exchanging leniency for information and assistance, and in allowing individual sentencing by avoiding mandatory harsh sentences.
However, this Court finds that relieving the defendant from his express written waiver of CPL 160.50 rights is in no way inconsistent with the above-established authorities dealing with plea bargaining. The Court of Appeals stated in People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, supra, at page 238, 360 N.Y.S.2d 623, 318 N.E.2d 784:
We are not here concerned with contract rights of the parties. By contrast, under General Obligations Law 15-303, there can be a written release of contract rights even without consideration.
The plea of guilty to any offense except a violation or traffic infraction requires a voir dire in the presence of counsel in open court during which the defendant is asked in a non-routine way certain searching questions as to admissions of fact which form the basis of the crime pleaded to, the knowing waiver of certain constitutional and statutory rights, (including the right to trial by jury or the right to trial by the Court), that the plea of guilty is the equivalent of a conviction after trial and whether any promises were made by the Court as to sentence.
The fact admissions and waivers of defendant's rights are implicit in the plea of guilty and are an integral part of such a plea. The voir dire seeks to insure that what is implicit and clear to the lawyers is made as explicit and clear as possible to the defendant. Prosecutors have refused to accept a guilty plea during voir dire where the defendant does not admit the underlying facts or shows a basic lack of understanding of the waivers that are involved. If any of the admissions or waivers during the voir dire were set aside, conviction and sentence would have to fall. The system of negotiated settlements would be destroyed if plea-bargained waivers could be set aside without legal cause. A plea waiving constitutional and statutory rights knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made, cannot be set aside.
But the vacating of the waiver of the return of fingerprints, photographs, and the sealing of the file under CPL 160.50 does not affect the resolution of the criminal disposition. The defendant still has his ACD, the District Attorney, the Court and the community still have kept the defendant away from trouble until the date of dismissal by the threat of restoration to the calendar, the calendar is less cluttered, and, overall, justice has been served by the plea negotiations.
But justice is thwarted by the retention of the prints, photographs and non-sealing, because this is a clear violation of CPL 160.50 for all the considerations set forth by this Court in its previous opinion, People v. Joseph P., Just.Ct., 433 N.Y.S.2d 335. The focus should not be on "whether a conviction was free from error but rather on whether the person can be restored to a useful place in the community." Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 83, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1633, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (footnote to concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Powell). The purpose of CPL 160.50 is to give the defendant a clean slate and to avoid the stigma of a record. Matter of Hynes v. Karassik, 47 N.Y.2d 659, 662, 663, 419...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Charles
...motion is effective provided it is knowingly and voluntarily made and is a part of the plea negotiations. In People v. Martin C. (1981) 107 Misc.2d 1007, 436 N.Y.S.2d 524, in a comparable situation, the reviewing court emphasized if such fundamental constitutional rights as right to jury tr......