| People v Rogers |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00691 [114 AD3d 707] |
| February 5, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kenneth Rogers, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano andJill A. Gross-Marks of counsel), for respondent.
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, andthe matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings onthe indictment.
In order to be valid, a plea of guilty must be entered voluntarily, knowingly, andintelligently (see People vMox, 20 NY3d 936, 938 [2012]; People v Hill, 9 NY3d 189, 191 [2007]; People vFiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]). Where a court merely makes remarksregarding 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 AD3d654 [2013]; People vBravo, 72 AD3d 697, 698 [2010]; People v Robinson, 64 AD3d 1248 [2009]; People vPagan, 297 AD2d 582 [2002]; People v Cornelio, 227 AD2d 248 [1996]).However, "[a] defendant may not be induced to plead guilty by the explicit threat of aheavier sentence should he choose to proceed to trial" (People v Hollis, 74 AD2d585, 585 [1980]).
Here, the Supreme Court's remarks that it would have "no problem" imposing themaximum sentence if the defendant were convicted after trial, which "[would] bebasically the end of [the defendant's] life," were impermissibly coercive, rendering thedefendant's plea involuntary (see People v Santiago, 71 AD3d 703 [2010]; People v Fisher, 70 AD3d114 [2009]; People vFlinn, 60 AD3d 1304 [2009]; People v Richards, 17 AD3d 136 [2005]; People vStevens, 298 AD2d 267 [2002]; People v Fanini, 222 AD2d 1111 [1995];People v Beverly, 139 AD2d 971 [1988]; People v Griffith, 80 AD2d590 [1981]; People v Hollis, 74 AD2d at 585). Accordingly, we vacate thedefendant's plea of guilty and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, forfurther proceedings on the indictment.
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remainingcontentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief. Mastro, J.P., Rivera,Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.