The People of the State of New York v. Antoine Gee
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law — validity of guilty pleas and the burglary-intent element in plea allocutions
The Supreme Court, New York County, accepted defendant’s guilty pleas to attempted burglary in the second degree (Ind. No. 910/2019) and assault in the second degree (Ind. No. 3494/2017) and imposed concurrent prison terms of two years and one year.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgments, vacated both guilty pleas, and remanded for further proceedings.
During the plea allocution for attempted burglary, defendant denied intending to commit a crime inside the dwelling and admitted only an intent to violate an order of protection, which cannot alone supply the requisite burglary intent. The court failed to conduct the required further inquiry to ensure a knowing and voluntary plea. Because the promised concurrent sentences can no longer be fulfilled, the assault plea must also be vacated.
Background
Defendant pleaded guilty under two indictments: attempted burglary in the second degree (Ind. No. 910/2019) and assault in the second degree (Ind. No. 3494/2017), with a promised concurrent sentencing package. During the attempted-burglary allocution, when asked if he knowingly entered and remained unlawfully in a dwelling and attempted to commit a crime therein, defendant replied, “That wasn’t my intent, but I did remain unlawfully.” Defense counsel noted there was a protective order, and the court clarified whether defendant’s intent was to violate the order of protection (OOP); defendant said “Yes.” The violation of a stay-away provision in an OOP, standing alone, does not establish the requisite intent to commit a crime inside the premises for burglary.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County (Paek, J., at plea; Badamo, J., at sentencing), accepted the pleas without further inquiry despite defendant’s denial of criminal intent inside the dwelling, and imposed concurrent terms of two years (attempted burglary second) and one year (assault second).
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed on the law. The court held that defendant’s allocution negated an essential element of attempted burglary—intent to commit a crime within the dwelling. The trial court was obligated to make a further inquiry to ensure a knowing and voluntary plea but did not do so, requiring vacatur of the burglary plea (see People v Lewis; People v Cajigas; People v Lopez). The People conceded error and further conceded that, because the concurrent-sentencing promise cannot be fulfilled, the assault plea must also be vacated (see People v Pichardo). The case is remanded for further proceedings.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that when a defendant’s plea allocution casts doubt on an essential element—here, intent to commit a crime inside a dwelling for burglary—the court must conduct a further inquiry to ensure the plea is knowing and voluntary. An admission to merely violating an order of protection (OOP) is insufficient, without more, to supply burglary intent. Additionally, when a global disposition hinges on concurrent sentences, vacatur of one plea may require vacatur of companion pleas if the promised package cannot be honored.
If a defendant’s allocution negates an element of the offense, the court must inquire further; absent that, the plea must be vacated. An OOP violation alone cannot establish burglary intent, and undoing a key plea in a concurrent package necessitates vacating the related pleas.