People v. Stoddard
Decision Date | 10 November 2021 |
Docket Number | Case No. 21070169 |
Citation | 73 Misc.3d 1216 (A),154 N.Y.S.3d 749 (Table) |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Christopher STODDARD, Defendant. |
Court | New York County Court |
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Monroe County (Jacqueline Moyer, of Counsel), for plaintiff
Jason M. Housel, Esq. Attorney for Defendant
The defendant was charged by a uniform traffic information, with speeding in violation of VTL § 1180 (d). It was alleged that the defendant was going 69 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour zone on July 6, 2021 at 6:21 P.M. The defendant pled guilty by mail having signed the plea of guilty on July 8, 2021, without the assistance of counsel. In so doing the defendant hand wrote in the section reserved for an optional statement as follows:
The court accepted his plea by mail on July 30, 2021. The court imposed a fine of $97.00 and the required surcharge of $93.00 for a total of $190.00. A written notice of same, dated August 4, 2021, was mailed to the defendant. Thus August 4, 2021 was the date of the judgment of conviction.1
To date no part of the fine or surcharge has been paid by the defendant.
This case is again before the court because the defendant's attorney, retained subsequent to the defendant's plea by mail, filed a motion dated August 16, 2021, requesting that the court issue an order permitting the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty. Attached to the Notice of Motion is an Attorney Affirmation and a document labeled "Affidavit" which was signed by the defendant, but whose signature was not notarized.. The People have filed a response in opposition to said motion.
The defense alleges that subsequent to pleading guilty by mail, the defendant consulted the defense counsel now appearing herein. Defense counsel advises that he submitted a notice of appearance and a not guilty plea to the court. Neither of which are in the court's file. Nor did defense counsel attach copies of same as exhibits to his motion papers. Nevertheless, defense counsel states that while waiting for a court date he was advised that his client received the said fine notice from the court. In his affirmation, defense counsel argues that the court should permit the withdrawal of his client's plea because the defendant did not believe he was speeding as fast as was alleged in the simplified traffic information; that the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made; that he did not seek the advice of legal counsel; that he did not understand court process, or what his options were; that he received an assessment notice from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, which he did not realize was a potential legal consequence prior to entering his plea. In his unsworn statement, the defendant alleges that he did not understand that the offense in question carried a significant point penalty on his driver license and that it would result in a DMV driver assessment. The defendant went on to argue that he did not understand he had options or that he could go court to present a defense or proffer mitigation to the court.
Is the fact that the defendant was unaware, among other things, that at the time he pled guilty to a speeding violation that his plea would result in a driver responsibility assessment a reason to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea?
Should the defendant be allowed to withdraw his plea because he was not represented by an attorney when he entered his guilty plea?
A motion to vacate a judgment of conviction is governed by CPL § 440.10 (1). That section states in pertinent part as follows:
In sum and substance, the defendants motion to vacate his plea is based on his lack of knowledge of the collateral consequences of his plea, to wit: the driver responsibility assessment of $300.00 imposed through the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. The defendant received a notice of same, dated August 7, 2021, from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles.2 In fact, not all consequences of a conviction need be known by a defendant before the plea is taken by the court. The Court of Appeals in People v. Peque , 22 NY3d 168, 184, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 291 [2013] held that the trial court must only advise defendants of the direct consequences of a guilty plea not the collateral consequences of that plea. The court went on to describe the difference between a direct and collateral consequence of a guilty plea. In addition, the said decision set out specific examples of both categories. The court stated as follows:
[internal citations omitted]3
An exception to that rule is when the legislature passes a law requiring that the court advise the defendant of consequences of a particular collateral consequence. For example in Peque the Court of Appeals stated that it had previously ruled "... that ‘[d]eportation is a collateral consequence of conviction because it is a result peculiar to the individual's personal circumstances and one not within the control of the court system’ "4 The court went on to state that soon after that ruling ...
To continue reading
Request your trial