People v. Rhodes
| Decision Date | 12 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2008-04132. |
| Citation | 878 N.Y.S.2d 773,2009 NY Slip Op 03924,62 A.D.3d 815 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHELLE RHODES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the plea is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the indictment.
The defendant allegedly participated in a drug sale in Hempstead on March 7, 2007, and she was arrested later that month. The felony complaint, and the laboratory report, indicated that the weight of the drugs was one two hundredth (0.005) of an ounce. Subsequently, the defendant was charged, by indictment, with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (see Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see Penal Law § 220.16 [1]), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see Penal Law § 220.03). In January 2008, the defendant agreed to plead guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, a class C felony (see Penal Law § 220.34 [1]), in full satisfaction of the indictment. During the allocution, however, the defendant, who was not asked if defense counsel had explained possible defenses to her, gave an account of the crime that raised the possibility of an agency defense (see People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, 74 [1978], cert denied 439 US 935 [1978]; People v Sierra, 45 NY2d 56, 58-59 [1978]). Although the court did not explain the import of this account to the defendant, or ask defense counsel to explain it, the court proposed that the plea be taken instead to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.09 [1]), also a class C felony. The remaining terms of the plea were to be unchanged. The prosecutor and defense counsel agreed to the change, but no one noted or explained to the defendant that the substituted charge contained as an element that the weight of the drugs be at least one eighth of an ounce.
Before sentencing, the defendant moved to withdraw her plea, arguing that agency would be a defense to the counts charging criminal sale of a controlled substance and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d at 74; People v Sierra, 45 NY2d at 58-59) and that the substituted charge was refuted by the laboratory report. The court denied the motion.
To be valid, a plea of guilty must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]), and it is the "constitutional duty" of a trial court to ensure that a guilty plea satisfy this requirement (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244 [2005]). Here, despite the allocution that clearly implicated an agency defense, the defendant was not advised that she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Haffiz
...536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 16-17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170; People v. Rhodes, 62 A.D.3d 815, 816, 878 N.Y.S.2d 773). The defendant's contentions to the contrary are belied by the record ( see People v. Miranda, 67 A.D.3d 709, 710, 886 N......
-
People v. Amanze
...536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 16–17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170; People v. Rhodes, 62 A.D.3d 815, 816, 878 N.Y.S.2d 773). Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his pl......
-
People v. Visconti
...82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646;People v. Haffiz, 77 A.D.3d 767, 768, 909 N.Y.S.2d 490;People v. Rhodes, 62 A.D.3d 815, 816, 878 N.Y.S.2d 773). As the People correctly concede, the amount of restitution imposed must be modified to conform to the County Court's determina......
-
People v. White
...71 A.D.3d 1169, 1170, 898 N.Y.S.2d 175 [2010] ; People v. Mobley, 68 A.D.3d 786, 786, 888 N.Y.S.2d 898 [2009] ; People v. Rhodes, 62 A.D.3d 815, 817, 878 N.Y.S.2d 773 [2009] ; People v. Wolcott, 27 A.D.3d at 775, 809 N.Y.S.2d 676 ). As there was no basis for further inquiry by County Court,......