PEOPLE v. NEILL (2023)

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of conviction is denied, and the judgment of conviction is reinstated.

In March 2000, defendant was charged with failing to signal within 100 feet before turning (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [b]). Upon defendant's plea of guilty to the charge, a judgment of conviction was entered on August 7, 2000. On November 24, 2021, defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (g). In an affirmation in support of the motion, defense counsel asserted that defendant's driver's license had been revoked in connection with another driving incident; that, due to defendant's driving record, defendant's application for relicensing would be denied pursuant to 15 NYCRR 136.5, regulations adopted by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles in 2012; and that vacating the judgment of conviction for failing to signal within 100 feet before turning would reduce the number of points on defendant's driving record and thus could allow defendant to apply for a license with a problem driver restriction. Defense counsel argued that defendant was entitled to relief under CPL 440.10 (1) (g), alleging that the 2012 relicensing regulations and the decision by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Acevedo v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. (29 NY3d 202 [2017]), which upheld the validity of those regulations, constituted newly discovered evidence. Defense counsel also contended that the judgment of conviction should be vacated due to the “severe collateral consequences of [the] conviction,” i.e., the potentially permanent revocation of defendant's driver's license. In opposition, the People asserted, among other things, that defendant was barred from raising a newly discovered evidence claim pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (g) because he had pleaded guilty, and that the collateral consequence of a lifetime license revocation is not a proper basis to invalidate a guilty plea. By order dated May 12, 2022, the Justice Court granted defendant's motion, stating that “it appears that the Defendant was not represented by counsel at the time of the plea.”

For the reasons stated in People v O'Neill (––– Misc 3d ––––, 2023 NY Slip Op –––– [appeal No. 2022-451 S CR], decided herewith), we find that the Justice Court erred in granting the motion.

Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of conviction is denied, and the judgment of conviction is reinstated.

GARGUILO, P.J., EMERSON and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.