Relates to certain guilty pleas

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Zellnor Myrie says this is needed

This proposal would allow courts, with the consent of the prosecutor and the defendant, to: (i) accept pleas below current statutory plea reduction thresholds; and (ii) impose upon predicate felony offenders sentences authorized for offenders without such predicate status. The Criminal Procedure Law contains multiple-mostly post-indictment-restric- tions on plea bargaining that often frustrate courts' and parties' abil- ity to negotiate acceptable, fair, and just dispositions because of requirements that defendants plead to more serious crimes, often with higher mandatory minimum sentences. The first prong of this proposal seeks to ameliorate the unfairness and inefficiency of the present stat- utory scheme by allowing a plea to go forward despite the restrictions mandating a more serious plea and sentence when the court and the prose- cution agree that it is just to do so. With the concurrence of the People, the court may determine that the plea is in the interest of justice in light of the nature and circumstances of crime, the available evidence, and the history and character of the defendant. This multi- factored assessment and finding must be placed on the record to ensure appropriate use of this new discretion. Current law imposes mandatory minimum sentences which increase if a defendant has one or more predicate felony convictions. There are cases, however, where the court, the defendant and the prosecutor agree that the circumstances of a crime and the defendant's criminal history should allow a guilty plea with a promised sentence lower than that required for such predicate felony offenders. For example, a defendant with a predicate felony conviction pleading guilty to a Class D non-violent felony (other than a narcotics crime), such as the unarmed burglarizing of a non-residential building without causing any injuries, must receive a minimum indeterminate sentence of 2-4 years, even if the prosecutor, defendant and court believe a lower sentence is appropriate. In such circumstances, under current law, the court is powerless to accept a plea with a promised sentence of less than the statutory 2-4 year mini- mum term. This legislation would also allow the court, on consent of the People, to accept a guilty plea with a promised sentence below current mandatory minimum thresholds for predicate felony offenders "when, upon review of the nature and circumstances of the criminal conduct, the available evidence and the history and character of the defendant, the prosecutor and the court are of the opinion that the plea permitted by this LEGIS- LATION is in the interest of justice." When such a lesser sentence is appropriate, the court may then impose a sentence that would be author- ized if the offender were not a predicate felon. The prosecution is explicitly permitted to condition such a plea on the defendant being adjudicated as a second felony, second felony drug, second violent felo- ny, or persistent violent felony offender, as applicable, to allow for more serious penalties to be imposed were such a defendant to subse- quently reoffend despite being offered this leniency. The plea provision and the sentencing provision may be utilized simul- taneously or separately depending on the circumstances of the negotiated disposition.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.