People v. Ramos

• Decision Date: 03 July 1984
• Citation: People v. Ramos, 479 N.Y.S.2d 510, 63 N.Y.2d 640, 468 N.E.2d 692 (N.Y. 1984)
• Parties: , 468 N.E.2d 692 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Miguel RAMOS, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 510

479 N.Y.S.2d 510

63 N.Y.2d 640, 468 N.E.2d 692

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Miguel RAMOS, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 3, 1984.

Mario Merola, Dist. Atty., (Peter S. Baranowicz of counsel), for appellant.

Shirley Werner Kornreich and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 99 A.D.2d 724, 472 N.Y.S.2d 339, should be reversed, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for a determination of the facts (CPL 470.40, subd. 2, par. 470.25, subd. 2, par. ).

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of robbery in the first degree in full satisfaction of a multicount indictment charging him and others with the crimes of kidnapping, burglary, robbery, attempted grand larceny, reckless endangerment and criminal possession of a weapon. At the sentencing proceeding defense counsel informed the court that defendant wished to withdraw his plea of guilty on the ground that it was induced by her erroneous sentencing advice. Specifically, counsel had assured defendant, off-the-record, that he would receive credit for the two and one-half years he had been in jail prior to sentencing and four months of "good time" credit for each year he had already served, and that this "good time" credit would be deducted from defendant's minimum sentence making him eligible for parole in approximately one year. This advice was erroneous because the "good time" would not be credited against the defendant's minimum sentence (cf. Correction Law, § 803; Penal Law, § 70.30, subd. 4).

The sentencing court denied defendant's motion to withdraw his plea and sentenced him to an indeterminate 4 1/2- to 13 1/2-year prison term. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed on the law, vacated the sentence, and remanded the matter to Trial Term for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant should be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty and reinstate his plea of not guilty to the indictment. Defendant also argued that his attorney's misadvice constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and that Federal constitutional principles mandated that he be permitted to withdraw his plea (see United States ex rel. Hill v. Ternullo, 510 F.2d 844).

As a general rule, "a showing that defendant's plea is baseless, the Judge to whom the motion is addressed must be entitled to rely on the record to ascertain whether any promises, representations, implications and the like were made to the defendant" and induced his plea of guilty (People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 525, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332; see, also, People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, 360 N.Y.S.2d 623, 318 N.E.2d 784). Although Frederick and Selikoff are factually distinguishable in that they involved alleged off-the-record promises made by the sentencing court to defendant or his attorney, the policy rationale underlying our refusal to recognize such representations or promises applies here as well. Namely,...