When a judge warns that losing at trial could mean forty-five years behind bars for a series of burglary charges, even the most confident defendant will think twice about exercising the right to a jury. That was the scenario facing twenty-three-year-old Marquese Scott, who accepted a six-to-eight-year offer on three second-degree burglary charges. Recently, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because the court overstated the maximum lawful sentence by twenty-five years. The ruling teaches prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers—and anyone charged with a felony—that accuracy is everything when liberty is on the line.
How an Erroneous “Worst Case” Skewed the Decision
Scott stood accused of three burglaries. Each Class C felony carries up to fifteen years, but Penal Law § 70.30(1)(e)(i) caps the combined term at twenty. During the plea colloquy, however, the judge told Scott three separate times that consecutive sentences could total forty-five years. Neither counsel nor the prosecutor corrected the mistake. Confronted with what sounded like an almost half-century exposure, Scott took the plea immediately—only to have the sentencing judge later impose fifteen years after concluding he had not fully accepted responsibility.
Why the Court of Appeals Stepped In
On appeal, Scott’s new counsel argued that the plea was invalid because it rested on patently false information. The prosecution countered that the claim was unpreserved; Scott had never moved to withdraw his plea or filed a CPL 440.10 motion. The Court of Appeals disagreed, applying its “no practical ability to object” exception. When the error is clear on the face of the record and the defendant had no reason to doubt the court’s assertion, preservation is not required. It was unreasonable to expect a young defendant to challenge the judge’s confident, repeated statement of the law.
Inflated Numbers Destroy Informed Consent
Plea bargaining demands a rational risk assessment: the certainty of the offer versus the possibility of a higher sentence after trial. If the “worst-case scenario” is wildly inflated, the balance collapses. Facing a real cap of twenty years—but believing the risk was forty-five—Scott had no meaningful choice. The Court highlighted the twenty-five-year disparity, Scott’s youth, and the prosecution’s insistence on a same-day answer as factors that collectively undermined voluntariness.
Key Takeaways for Anyone Facing Criminal Charges
Verify the statute yourself. Never accept a plea until your lawyer confirms the maximum term by statute and, when applicable, by aggregate-sentencing rules. Even seasoned professionals can overlook consecutive-sentence caps.
Ask clarifying questions in court. A polite request for the judge to explain how a number was reached can expose errors before they become set in stone.
Document pressure tactics. Offers that expire “right now” create grounds for later challenges if combined with misinformation.
Remember that appellate remedies exist. A clear transcript error can support direct appeal even without a formal objection, though every case turns on its own facts.
Facing Felony Charges? Tilem & Associates Can Help
Your liberty is too important to gamble on incorrect assumptions. Before you plead, let Tilem & Associates verify every statutory limit, examine every defense, and negotiate from a position of strength. Call 877-377-8666 or complete our confidential online form today. An informed decision now can spare you years of regret later.