The People of the State of New York, v. Owane N. Richards, Defendant. (2026)

History of Case

On September 17, 2026, the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") revoked Defendant Owane N. Richards's New York State driving privileges for six (6) months based upon Defendant accruing three speeding violation convictions in eighteen (18) months from July 3, 2020, to October 17, 2021. Defendant now files a coram nobis application  ¹ seeking to vacate his October 21, 2020, guilty plea to a reduced speeding violation under Vehicle and Traffic Law ("VTL") § 1180-B: driving 65 miles per hour ("mph") in a 55-mph zone,² a three-point traffic infraction, pursuant to ticket number 1T22C1DCNQ. Defendant's application is based on two claims: (1) at the time he pled guilty he did not understand that his conviction, when combined with two later speeding convictions, would result in the mandatory revocation of his driving privileges; and (2) that the revocation of his driver's license has caused him economic hardship by placing his Connecticut commercial driver's license (CDL"), and associated employment, at risk.

Following Defendant's October 21, 2020, guilty plea in the Town of Clarkstown he was convicted of two subsequent speeding offenses: (1) on July 15, 2023, in the Town of Greenburgh, Defendant pled guilty to driving 66 mph in a 55 mph zone in conjunction with a violation issued on October 17, 2021, and (2) on August 17, 2026, in the Town of Trenton, Defendant pled guilty to driving 56 mph in a 55 mph zone in conjunction with a violation issued on January 13, 2021.³ The August 17, 2026, Town of Trenton speeding conviction triggered the six-month revocation of Defendant's New York driving privileges.

Discussion

Defendant has an extensive and extremely poor driving record that in addition to his speeding convictions includes the following convictions, as documented in Defendant's New York DMV abstract: (1) unregistered motor vehicle (01/25/2023), (2) disobeyed traffic device (12/08/2023), (3) improper turn (12/08/2023), (4) failed to yield right of way to a pedestrian (12/08/2023), (5) no inspection sticker (01/08/2024); (6) unregistered motor vehicle (01/08/2024); (7) unregistered motor vehicle (01/25/2023), (8) passed a red light (04/08/2024), and (9) operating without a license (11/12/2025). Additionally, Defendant failed to pay the $147.00 fine and $93 surcharge imposed by the Town of Clarkstown Justice Court on his 2021 speeding conviction, which caused the Court to issue a civil judgment against him.

To overcome the presumption of validity that attaches to judgments of conviction, a defendant is required to allege a ground "constituting a legal basis for relief" and assert sworn allegations of fact "substantiating or tending to substantiate all the essential facts" required. CPL §§ 440.20 (1)(a), (4)(b); People v. Mavroudis, 82 Misc 3d 428, 432-433 (Sup. Ct., Albany Co. 2023).

Turning to Defendant's first claim that he did not understand at the time he entered his Town of Clarkstown guilty plea that if he accumulated two other speeding convictions for his actions within the next eighteen (18) months, his New York driving privileges would be revoked.Here, Defendant claims his guilty plea was involuntary because he did not understand that it could be combined with future speeding traffic offenses and lead to the revocation of his New York driver's license. The written reduced plea offer to Defendant indicated that with the reduced guilty plea three (3) points would accrue to Defendant's driver's license. Importantly, a trial court is not required to advise a defendant that his guilty plea may result in the loss of his driver's license because that is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea unique to each defendant and generally results from action of an agency, the DMV, the court does not control. People v. Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 403, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270 (1995); People v. Newell, 76 Misc 3d 1062, 1065-1066 (Town of New Scotland Justice Court 2022); see also, People v. Wheaton, 49 Misc 3d 378, 379 (Co. Ct, Seneca Co. 2015). Nor could the Court advise Defendant that the Clarkstown conviction could lead to his license revocation since two subsequent speeding convictions, the last of which occurred in 2026, caused the DMV to act. Thus, Defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. People v. Maggio, 210 AD3d 798 (2d Dep't 2022); People v. DiTorre, 209 AD3d 665 (2d Dep't 2022); People v. Phommanirat, 80 Misc 3d 1225(A)(Town of Webster Justice Court 2023).⁴ It should also be noted that Maggio and DiTorre applied to the DMV's more severe lifetime revocation regulation that did not exist at the time those Defendants pleaded guilty to the challenged driving while intoxicated convictions, not the less draconian and long-time existing three speeding convictions revocation regulation at issue here.

The Court next considers claim that the loss of driving privileges in New York endangered Defendant's Connecticut commercial driver's license ("CDL") and his driver-dependent employment. Defendant provided no documentation to support this claim. As for Defendant's assertion that he has not had any speeding violations in recent years, his New York DMV abstract shows numerous other traffic offense convictions, as set forth supra. Moreover, possible financial hardship from the loss of a driver's license or operating privileges is not a "countervailing factor" warranting setting aside a conviction. Phommanirat, supra; People v. Beltran, 77 Misc 3d 1091, 1102 (Town of Deerpark Justice Court 2022); People v. Gallagher, 70 Misc 3d 1210(A)(Rye City Ct. 2020). Further, vacating a guilty plea years after it has been entered, and restoring the case to the calendar is a prejudice in favor of the Defendant and adverse to the People's ability to prosecute. Phommanirat, supra; Beltran, supra at 1102.

While a court has the discretion to use coram nobis to correct a plain injustice, that is not the case here given Defendant's long and egregious driving record and flouting of the law. Therefore, this Court finds that any argument that the coram nobis application should be granted because of unspecified and undocumented adverse effects on Defendant due to the revocation of his New York driving privileges to be without merit.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's coram nobis application is in all aspects DENIED.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

Dated: October 9, 2026

New City, New York

Hon. Michael E. Bongiorno

Clarkstown Town Justice

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Town Attorney took no position on this Coram Nobis Petition.

2.   The New York State Police ("NYSP"), in a Uniform Traffic Ticket issued on July 3, 2020, initially charged Defendant with driving 94 mph in a 55-mph zone.

3.   Defendant's DMV abstract shows he repeatedly failed to appear to address traffic summonses, including in the Town of Trenton. This may explain why resolution of the Town of Trenton speeding summons took almost five (5) years.

4.   Defendant cites People v. Veltre, 61 Misc 3d 331 (Poughkeepsie City Court 2018) in his petition in support of his application. Veltre predates the rulings in Maggio and DiTorre. Regardless, the Court finds the reasoning of Veltre unpersuasive.

Michael E. Bongiorno, J.