People v. StevensPeople v. Stevens
In March 2007, defendant was interviewed by law enfоrcement officers in connection with an alleged course of sexual abuse of a teenaged victim occurring over the period оf three years, from 2000 through 2003, and a course of sexual abuse of a second, younger teenaged victim occurring over the period of the three subsequent years from 2004 through 2007. Defendant confessed to engaging in sexual conduct with both victims in an audiotaped and written statement. Initially, he waived indiсtment and allegedly decided to accept a plea proposal negotiated by his attorney that included a 15-year sentencing agreement. However, after consulting with a second attorney, defendant rejected the plea proposal and subsequently retained the second attorney.
In May 2007, defendant was indicted on 142 counts of crimes relating to the first victim and, shortly thereafter, on 10 counts of crimes relating to thе second victim. Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty upon the first indictment to four counts of rape in the first degree and four counts of sodomy in the first degrеe and, upon the second indictment, to two counts of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and one count of predatory sexual assault against a child. During his plea allocution, defendant waived the right to appeal and also signed a written waiver subscribed by both him and his counsel. He was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years on each count, to run concurrently, with five years of postrelease supervision on the first 10 counts and postrelease supervision for life on the final charge of predatory sexual assault against a child. In the
Defendant does not contest the validity of his waiver of the right to appeal, concentrating instead on County Court’s denial of his
Defendant did not state which specific provision of
Defendant’s application is wholly without merit. In effect, he seeks to reinstate the initial рlea offer. He is not entitled to that relief. Specific performance of the previous offer is unavailable because it was never placed upon the record or approved by County Court (see People v Huertas, 85 NY2d 898 [1995]; People v Scialdone, 228 AD2d 807, 808 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 929 [1996]). Having rejected the initial plea, he cannot demonstrate any rеliance thereon (see People v Anderson, 270 AD2d 509, 510-511 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 792 [2000]; People v Hamilton, 192 AD2d 738, 740 [1993]; People v Simmons, 190 AD2d 911, 912 [1993]). Finally, as defendant admits to being fully complicit in an alleged illegal scheme, he is clearly not entitled to specific performance of the initial plea agreement “as a matter of essential fairness” (People v McConnell, 49 NY2d 340, 349 [1980]; see People v Augustine, 265 AD2d 671, 672 [1999]). The record reveals that defendant was fully and properly apprised of his legal position by his first counsel, who had negotiated the favorable proposal on his behalf and who was still his сounsel of record when he rejected it. Defendant’s choice to reject this advice and instead engage in an obviously wrongful course оf conduct cannot be rewarded. Though he alleges that his second attorney led him into this misconduct, no legal education was required to understand that bribing these two young victims in an effort to avoid their testimony was criminal conduct directly designed to undermine the legal process. His admitted participation in this scheme bars the requested relief, and County Court properly denied his motion.
Finally, the claim for coram nobis relief is denied. The issues thаt defendant raises were addressed within the context of the