People v. Rodriguez

• Decision Date: 02 April 2019
• Docket Number: No. 59 SSM 2,59 SSM 2
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New YorK, Respondent, v. Alexis RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

33 N.Y.3d 956
123 N.E.3d 255
99 N.Y.S.3d 771

The PEOPLE of the State of New YorK, Respondent,
v.
Alexis RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.

No. 59 SSM 2

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 2, 2019

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

33 N.Y.3d 957

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. As part of a plea agreement and in exchange for a favorable sentence, defendant entered into a written cooperation agreement whereby he promised to "cooperate completely and truthfully with law enforcement authorities, including the police and the District Attorney's Office, on all matters in which his cooperation is requested, including but not limited to the prosecution of [defendant's accomplices] on charges related to the murder of Jose Sanchez and the assault of [Sanchez's brother]." Prior to entering into the cooperation agreement, defendant had confessed to his involvement in the Sanchez murder and assault, explaining that the crimes were retaliation for a prior invasion of defendant's home by Sanchez and his associates, including Jose Marin. When defendant signed the agreement, he already had testified to Marin's involvement in the home invasion before the grand jury in the Sanchez matter, and he also had assisted the police with their investigation of the home invasion by identifying Marin in a photo array.

The cooperation agreement cautioned defendant that a "fail[ure] to fully and successfully cooperate" would result in forfeiture of the sentencing promise and imposition of an enhanced sentence. Before County Court accepted his guilty plea, defendant confirmed on the record that he understood this aspect of the cooperation agreement. Defendant pleaded guilty to murder and assault, and he was subsequently sentenced on the murder count. Upon consent of the parties, sentencing on the assault count was postponed until defendant had fulfilled his obligations under the cooperation agreement. Before imposition of that sentence, the District Attorney's Office requested that defendant testify against Marin in connection with the prosecution of the home invasion. Defendant refused.

On this record, County Court did not err when it determined that defendant's refusal to testify against Marin violated the express terms of his cooperation agreement. The plain language of the agreement was objectively susceptible to but one interpretation (see People v. Cataldo, 39 N.Y.2d 578, 580, 384 N.Y.S.2d 763, 349 N.E.2d 863 [1976] ). County Court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on his claimed subjective misinterpretation of the agreement or by concluding, to the contrary, that defendant reasonably understood that his cooperation in the Marin prosecution was required (see id. ; see also People v. Collier, 22 N.Y.3d 429, 433, 982 N.Y.S.2d 34, 5 N.E.3d 5 [2013] ). Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel argument

33 N.Y.3d 958

likewise lacks merit (see People v. Manor, 27 N.Y.3d 1012, 1014, 35 N.Y.S.3d 272, 54 N.E.3d 1143 [2016] ).

RIVERA, J. (ing).

This appeal presents an open question that this Court has never addressed: what interpretive standards apply to the terms

99 N.Y.S.3d 773

123 N.E.3d 257

of a cooperation agreement when, as here, a defendant claims to have neither intended nor understood the agreement to include the People's demand for assistance with an unspecified criminal investigation or prosecution? Rather than tackle that issue head on, the majority affirms the Appellate Division's order in a single sentence analysis that is short on reasoning and creates confusion in this undeveloped area. Our constitutional role is to provide guidance to our State's courts and bar by providing clear rules of legal analysis. In the case of cooperation agreements, those bargained-for-promises are subject to our traditional rules of contract interpretation. Applying those rules here, I conclude that defendant's cooperation agreement is limited in scope to the crimes for which he pleaded guilty. Therefore, defendant did not violate the agreement when he refused to testify against an individual charged with a different, prior crime against defendant and his family. Accordingly, it was error for County Court to deny defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea upon that court's refusal to sentence defendant to the consecutive terms he bargained for. I dissent.¹

I.

The Cooperation Agreement, Defendant's Sentence and the Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea

Defendant Alexis Rodriguez and his family were victims of a

33 N.Y.3d 959

home invasion burglary arising from a dispute between defendant and Jose Sanchez. Defendant owed money to Sanchez for his help registering and insuring a minivan. Sanchez and three accomplices — Sanchez's two brothers and a man later identified as Victor Marin —entered defendant's home and brandished weapons at defendant and his family. Defendant told the men to take the minivan in place of the money he owed, which they did. Before leaving, Marin threatened defendant and his family that anyone who reported the incident to the police would be killed.

About a month later, defendant and three accomplices armed with guns went to Sanchez's house intending to retrieve the vehicle. A fight ensued, during which defendant's accomplices fought and stabbed one of Sanchez's brothers. One of the accomplices then stabbed Sanchez, another shot him multiple times, and after Sanchez fell to the ground, defendant shot Sanchez several more times.

Defendant was arrested for Sanchez's murder and the stabbing and beating of Sanchez's brother. Defendant confessed and told the police about the home invasion to explain the motive for his crimes. The People offered a plea bargain to defendant that required his cooperation with law enforcement. During the negotiations but before signing a written agreement,

99 N.Y.S.3d 774

123 N.E.3d 258

defendant was shown a photo array from which he identified Marin as a participant in the home invasion. Defendant previously knew Marin only by nickname. Defendant also waived immunity and testified before a grand jury regarding Sanchez's murder. During this testimony defendant again described his motive for the murder as the home invasion and stated that Marin was one of the participants in that prior crime. The People explained to the grand jury that defendant's testimony was relevant only as to the motive behind the murder of Sanchez and the assault on Sanchez's brother. Nevertheless, based on that testimony, the People successfully requested the grand jury consider charges against Marin for burglary in the first degree.

Thereafter, defendant signed a written plea and cooperation agreement. The agreement provides, in relevant part,

that "Defendant will cooperate completely and truthfully with law enforcement authorities, including the police and the District Attorney's Office, on all matters in which his cooperation is requested

33 N.Y.3d 960

including but not limited to the prosecution of [defendant's accomplices] on charges related to the murder of Jose Sanchez and the assault of [Sanchez brother]."

The agreement also stated that "Defendant hereby verifies, and it is a condition of this agreement, that his Grand Jury testimony ... regarding this murder and assault was truthful. It is a condition of this agreement that he agree to look at photo array compilations in an attempt to identify the other two accomplices."

Pursuant to the agreement, defendant would plead guilty to murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree. In exchange for his plea and cooperation, he would be sentenced to 20 years to life in prison on the murder count and a concurrent sentence of 20 years in prison, followed by five years' post-release supervision on the assault count. If defendant failed to comply with the cooperation agreement, he would be sentenced to a consecutive term of 10 to 20 years in prison on his plea to the assault. Accordingly, upon defendant's plea, the court sentenced him to 20 years to life in prison for the murder conviction and adjourned sentencing on the assault conviction pending defendant's compliance with the cooperation agreement.

Approximately ten months after entering into the cooperation agreement and pleading guilty, the People requested that defendant testify against Marin in Marin's burglary trial for the home invasion committed against defendant and his family. Defendant refused to testify. He maintained that the agreement did not require this testimony and he was afraid for his family's safety.

After the court warned defendant that it would view the cooperation agreement as requiring him to testify in Marin's trial, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that the plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Defendant attested by affidavit that he had a justifiable belief that the cooperation agreement only required him to cooperate in...