The People Of The State Of N.Y. v. Brown

• Citation: 14 N.Y.3d 113,924 N.E.2d 782
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Homer BROWN, Jr., Appellant.
• Decision Date: 18 February 2010
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

14 N.Y.3d 113
924 N.E.2d 782

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Homer BROWN, Jr., Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 18, 2010.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Janet C. Somes of counsel), for appellant.

Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Nicole M. Fantigrossi of counsel), for respondent.

924 N.E.2d 782

OPINION OF THE COURT Chief Judge LIPPMAN.

Defendant, under indictment for one count of robbery in the third degree and one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree, was unable to post the $10,000 bail and was held in custody while awaiting prosecution. From the time of his arrest on April 11, 2005 until his June 29, 2005 guilty plea, defendant consistently maintained his innocence and so testified at the grand jury. Shortly after his indictment, the parties learned that defendant's son was in the hospital and in a coma as a result of multiple gunshot wounds. At the outset of the next court appearance, the court informed defendant that a proposed plea bargain would require him to plead guilty to both counts of the indictment in

924 N.E.2d 783

exchange for a 2-to-4-year sentence, and then stated, “[y]our attorney told me [that] you were interested in taking the plea if I were to give you a furlough for three weeks to allow you to see your sick child,” who was still in the hospital. Defendant responded in the affirmative, and the court agreed to the furlough, warning defendant that if he did not appear on the scheduled date, he would receive an increased sentence.

During the ensuing colloquy, the court informed defendant of the rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty, and confirmed that no threats or promises, other than the promised three-week furlough, had been made to defendant. The court never inquired whether defendant was pleading guilty voluntarily. After defendant admitted to the facts constituting the crimes charged, the court accepted the guilty plea, released defendant on his own recognizance, and ordered defendant to return after the promised furlough.

After surrendering himself on the scheduled date, and prior to the imposition of sentence, defendant moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that it had not been entered into voluntarily. The motion detailed that, while he had been in custody prior to pleading guilty, defendant requested a visit to the hospital to see his child, but jail officials denied the request on the apparently mistaken belief that his son's condition was not serious. Defendant contended that he entered the guilty plea “under conditions of duress” and “as a result of emotional and mental distress caused by his fear of his son's death.” He further claimed that he “never would have entered into a guilty plea if his son had not been shot and lapsed into a coma.” The court denied the motion without a hearing, stating,

“I made it clear to [defendant] when he plead[ed] guilty that he wasn't going to withdraw his plea

...

“I'm not going to allow him to withdraw his plea. He made an allocution before me that he committed this offense ... That was an adequate allocution to the two charges that he plead[ed] guilty to.”

The court then sentenced defendant to the promised 2-to-4-year prison term.

The...