Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The People, etc., respondent, v. Kenneth Rogers, appellant.
Argued—January 9, 2014
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered October 26, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the plea of guilty is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictment.
In order to be valid, a plea of guilty must be entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently (see People v. Mox, 20 NY3d 936, 938; People v. Hill, 9 NY3d 189, 191; People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543). Where a court merely makes remarks regarding a defendant's sentence exposure in the event he were to be convicted after trial, the remarks are properly deemed informative, not coercive (see People v. Solis, 111 AD3d 654; People v. Bravo, 72 AD3d 697, 698; People v. Robinson, 64 AD3d 1248; People v. Pagan, 297 A.D.2d 582; People v. Cornelio, 227 A.D.2d 248). However, “[a] defendant may not be induced to plead guilty by the explicit threat of a heavier sentence should he choose to proceed to trial” (People v. Hollis, 74 A.D.2d 585, 585).
Here, the Supreme Court's remarks that it would have “no problem” imposing the maximum sentence if the defendant were convicted after trial, which “[would] be basically the end of [the defendant's] life,” were impermissibly coercive, rendering the defendant's plea involuntary (see People v. Santiago, 71 AD3d 703; People v. Fisher, 70 AD3d 114; People v. Flinn, 60 AD3d 1304; People v. Richards, 17 AD3d 136; People v. Stevens, 298 A.D.2d 267; People v. Fanini, 222 A.D.2d 1111; People v. Beverly, 139 A.D.2d 971; People v. Griffith, 80 A.D.2d 590; People v. Hollis, 74 A.D.2d at 585). Accordingly, we vacate the defendant's plea of guilty and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictment.
MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, SGROI and COHEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2009–10412 (Ind.No. 1989 /04)
Decided: February 05, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)