People v. McConnell

Decision Date20 February 1980
Parties, 402 N.E.2d 133 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gerald Joseph McCONNELL, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Donald J. Martin, Jackson Heights, for appellant
OPINION OF THE COURT

MEYER, Judge.

Is it an abuse of discretion for a Trial Judge, who believes that information learned during the trial of a codefendant warrants his doing so, to impose a 15-year sentence upon a defendant who pleads guilty to manslaughter, second degree, with the understanding that the maximum sentence imposed will be 10 years, where defendant has, as agreed in plea negotiations, testified before the Grand Jury, resulting in indictment of himself and his three codefendants, testified before the petit jury on the trial of one codefendant, resulting in conviction of that codefendant, and whose availability to testify against the other codefendants, the prosecutor agrees, was instrumental in their pleading guilty? We hold that under the circumstances of this case hereafter detailed, defendant is entitled to specific performance of the plea bargain. The order of the Appellate Division should, therefore, be reversed and the case remitted to Onondaga County Court for resentence to an indeterminate term with a maximum of 10 years in accordance with the defendant's plea.

On July 19, 1976, defendant was an airman at an Air Force base, as were codefendants Carroll, Rock and Bridges and as was Ricky Hasman. Prior to that date none of the defendants had ever been involved in a crime. During the early morning hours of July 19, 1976 Airman Hasman was brutally beaten to death on a deserted road near the base, after a day during which, as the Trial Judge noted at defendant's sentencing, McConnell, Carroll, Rock and Bridges drank heavily and there was "drug abuse from the rock concert to the orgy of the barracks to the site of later what was to be an execution on Dope Smoker's Road", following which "three people (defendant, Carroll and Hasman) went down that road from where you were parked. Two stayed at the car. Three went down and only two returned."

During the investigation which followed Hasman's death, defendant McConnell's attorney agreed with the Assistant District Attorney in charge of the matter that in exchange for McConnell's testimony before the Grand Jury and in any subsequent judicial proceedings resulting from Hasman's death, the prosecutor would accept a plea of guilty to one count of manslaughter in the second degree in satisfaction of all counts that might be brought against him in the forthcoming indictment and would recommend the imposition of sentence to an indeterminate term with a maximum of 10 years, even though manslaughter, second degree, was punishable by an indeterminate sentence with a maximum as high as 15 years. A conference then took place in chambers between the prosecutor, defense counsel and the County Judge during which the Judge stated that if defendant testified truthfully he would not consider a sentence with a greater maximum than 10 years.

Defendant McConnell appeared before the Grand Jury the next day, waived immunity and testified. As a result the Grand Jury returned indictments against him, Carroll, Rock and Bridges, defendant and Carroll being charged with murder, second degree, false imprisonment, first degree, and possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and Rock and Bridges being charged with manslaughter, second degree, and false imprisonment, first degree.

Rock and Bridges chose not to go to trial as a result, according to the affidavit of the Assistant District Attorney in charge, of McConnell's availability to the District Attorney as a witness against them. They pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide and each was sentenced to one year in prison. A few days before Carroll's trial was to begin McConnell appeared before the County Judge. The prosecutor recounted the plea bargain previously discussed including the agreement that his office would recommend a sentence of 10 years maximum with no minimum in disposition of McConnell's plea. The Judge acknowledged his recollection of the prior discussion and indicated his concurrence with the agreement. His statement on the record was "And based upon what I know of this at this point, unless something comes to my attention that changes it, in the Probation report I am inclined to agree with the recommendation of the District Attorney's office in this case." During the course of taking defendant's plea the Judge asked defendant to admit "that you recklessly caused the death of Ricky Hasman by punching, beating or kicking and in that manner eventually Mr. Hasman died" and, receiving an affirmative response, accepted McConnell's plea to manslaughter, second degree, in satisfaction of the entire indictment against him.

A few days later defendant testified for the prosecution at the trial of defendant Carroll, over which the same County Judge presided. Carroll was found guilty of manslaughter, second degree, and ultimately was sentenced to an indeterminate term of not exceeding 15 years. When McConnell appeared for sentencing thereafter, the prosecutor recommended the agreed indeterminate term with a 10-year maximum. The County Judge, however, though stating explicitly that "There is nothing in that, that presentence report that I didn't know", refused to go along with the plea bargain and imposed a sentence of 15 years maximum. The basis of his refusal was that he had learned during the Carroll trial that McConnell "had stabbed the person" which he had not previously known and that "I agreed providing it was based upon what I knew at that time." He acknowledged that McConnell had "put yourself in a position by testifying before the Grand Jury so that I can't allow you to withdraw your plea because you have incriminated yourself", but said that he felt compelled by his duty as a Judge not to follow the District Attorney's recommendation. Defendant's motion to vacate the sentence and for imposition of a 10-year maximum sentence was thereafter denied by the County Judge and that denial was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division in a memorandum which noted that it would vacate the sentence and permit withdrawal of the plea but that on oral argument defendant's attorney had expressly stated that he did not seek such relief.

Defendant argues that he is entitled to specific performance of the plea bargain because he lived up to his agreement and the only reservation made by the County Judge was with respect to new matter brought to his attention in the probation report. While we agree with defendant's conclusion, we do not accept his entire premise. In our view, defendant is entitled to specific performance because by living up to his part of the bargain defendant has put himself, as the County Judge acknowledged, in a no-return position and because the additional information which came to the Judge's attention after the bargain was struck was not of such a nature as to warrant refusal to go along with the bargain which defendant had fully performed.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
133 cases
  • People v. Siebert
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 7 Septiembre 1993
    ...following a plea may prevent restoration to status quo ante and render vacatur of the plea inappropriate (see People v McConnell, 49 NY2d 340; 425 NYS2d 794 [402 N.E.2d 133 (1980) ]. Absent defendant's showing of such prejudice or other circumstances militating against vacatur, however, rel......
  • Constant v. Martuscello, 14–CV–1912.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 14 Agosto 2015
    ...is permitted to consider the contents of those communications in imposing a proper sentence. See, e.g., People v. McConnell, 49 N.Y.2d 340, 425 N.Y.S.2d 794, 402 N.E.2d 133, 137 (1980) ("It is, however, the substance of the believable information received rather than the channel through whi......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 2 Julio 1984
    ...346, supra; Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 353-355, 96 S.Ct. 3001, 3015-3016, 49 L.Ed.2d 974 supra; People v. McConnell, 49 N.Y.2d 340, 346, 425 N.Y.S.2d 794, 402 N.E.2d 133; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83-85, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675; see, also, People v. Gittelson, 18 N.Y.2d 427, 432, 27......
  • People v. Watson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 18 Julio 2018
    ...quoting People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305, 437 N.Y.S.2d 961, 419 N.E.2d 864 ; see Penal Law § 1.05 ; People v. McConnell, 49 N.Y.2d 340, 346, 425 N.Y.S.2d 794, 402 N.E.2d 133 ; People v. Diaz, 146 A.D.3d at 805–806, 46 N.Y.S.3d 627 ). "There is no place in the scheme for punishment for i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • FIXING APPEAL WAIVERS IN NEW YORK.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 84 No. 2, June 2021
    • 22 Junio 2021
    ...(first citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938); then citing Santobello, 404 U.S. at 262; and then citing People v. McConnell, 402 N.E.2d 133, 135 (N.Y. (23) See Thomas, 144 N.E.3d at 979-80 (citing People v. Lopez, 844 N.E.2d 1145, 1149-50 (N.Y. 2006)). (24) Thomas, 144 N.E.3d at......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT