NY Court of Appeals vacates guilty plea on sentencing error

Listen to this article

New York state’s highest court has vacated a drunk-driving conviction and other charges because the defendant was not fully informed of the consequences of his guilty plea.

Defendant Juan Padilla-Zuniga was indicted on multiple charges stemming from his operation of a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license and under the influence of alcohol.

In exchange for a sentence of five years on probation, Padilla-Zuniga agreed to plead guilty to aggravated first-degree unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, aggravated driving while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of an accident without reporting.

The judge did not mention, until sentencing, that there was a mandatory $500 fine for the aggravated first-degree unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle and aggravated driving while intoxicated charges, and Padilla-Zuniga did not raise any objection to the fines.

Padilla-Zuniga appealed to the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Second Department, which affirmed the convictions, ruling that Padilla-Zuniga’s challenges to his guilty plea were unpreserved or precluded by the valid waiver of his right to appeal.

“Although the defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal does not preclude appellate review of his challenge to the voluntariness of the plea, or his contention that the Supreme Court improperly imposed an enhanced sentence, those contentions are unpreserved for appellate review,” the Second Department wrote.

One exception to the preservation requirement is when a defendant had “no actual or practical ability to object” before the imposition of the fines by the sentencing judge, the Court of Appeals wrote in a recent decision.

“Further, a valid appeal waiver does not preclude a defendant from challenging a plea as involuntary, where the court fails to advise a defendant of a component of their sentence before it is imposed,” the court wrote.

“Supreme Court erred in failing to inform defendant at the time of his plea that the sentences for two of the offenses to which he was pleading guilty included mandatory fines,” the court wrote.

Failing to ensure that Padilla-Zuniga fully understood the consequences of the plea requires that the plea be vacated, the court wrote.

The case was sent back to Supreme Court.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035