The People v. Joseph Conceicao / The People v. Federico Perez / The People v. Javier Sanchez
23 N.Y.S.3d 124
NY2015Background
- Three consolidated appeals (People v Conceicao; People v Perez; People v Sanchez) challenge whether guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary when trial courts did not recite Boykin rights (jury trial, confrontation, privilege against self-incrimination).
- Conceicao: misdemeanor drug charge; pleaded guilty at arraignment to People’s recommendation (two days community service); record contains no discussion of rights or counsel consultation; sentence completed.
- Perez: charged with misdemeanor and other counts; after months of litigation rejected an earlier offer, later accepted a plea to disorderly conduct ($100 fine); record shows counsel litigated the case, the court adjourned to allow consideration, and defendant said he had enough time to consult counsel.
- Sanchez: DWI set for trial; on trial date defendant accepted plea negotiated by counsel with fines, programs, ignition lock, license revocation; counsel announced defendant’s decision and waived further allocution; record shows extensive pretrial litigation and same counsel as Perez.
- Appellate courts: Conceicao Appellate Term affirmed (preservation), Perez Appellate Division affirmed, Sanchez Appellate Division vacated plea for lack of record waiver; the Court of Appeals granted leave in each.
- Court of Appeals held Perez and Sanchez pleas valid on the whole-record review but vacated Conceicao’s plea for failure to show an intentional waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to recite Boykin rights automatically invalidates a plea | People: no automatic invalidation; review totality to find an affirmative record waiver | Defendants: plea invalid for lack of on-the-record recitation of Boykin rights | Court: No automatic rule; uphold plea if record as a whole affirmatively shows intentional waiver (Perez, Sanchez upheld; Conceicao vacated) |
| Whether unpreserved Boykin claims are reviewable on direct appeal | People: preservation still generally required; but review allowed where defendant lacked practical ability to move to withdraw plea | Defendants: claims reviewable (mode of proceedings error or Lopezi/Louree exception) | Court: Preservation rule applies, but narrow exception permits review where defendant had no practical opportunity to seek relief before sentencing; here reviewable |
| Standard for determining validity of waiver when Boykin not recited | People: flexible totality-of-circumstances test (competence of counsel, consultation, seriousness, pace, rationality of plea) | Defendants/concurring judges: demand clearer on-the-record waiver or equivalent; prefer formal canvass | Court: Apply flexible Harris/Brady totality test; require affirmative demonstration of waiver in the record; no rigid script required |
| Remedy when plea vacated after sentence served | People: remand may serve penological purpose; dismissal not always required | Defendants (Rivera concurrence): dismiss accusatory instrument where no penological purpose in remand, consistent with precedent | Court: For Conceicao, vacate plea and remit to Criminal Court (did not dismiss accusatory instrument); in Tyrell precedent dismissal sometimes required, but majority remits here due to penological considerations |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (Waiver of jury, confrontation, and privilege against self-incrimination cannot be presumed from a silent record)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (Totality-of-circumstances standard for voluntary guilty pleas)
- Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (Waiver must be intelligent and understanding; used to explain Boykin’s requirement)
- People v. Tyrell, 22 N.Y.3d 359 (Clarified need for affirmative record showing waiver; addressed reviewability of unpreserved Boykin claims)
- People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9 (Endorsed flexible totality approach to plea allocutions)
- People v. Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338 (Rejected ritualistic plea catechism; outlined factors for evaluating plea adequacy)
- People v. Louree, 8 N.Y.3d 541 (Lopez/Louree exception: reviewability where defendant had no practical ability to object post-allocution)
- People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168 (Preservation rules for plea challenges)