People v Logan
Annotate this CaseDecided on July 11, 2019
Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
against
Joseph Logan, Defendant.
2453/18
For Defendant:
Pat Bonanno, Esq.
Pat Bonanno & Associates, P.C.
175 Main Street, Suite 507
White Plains, New York 10601
For the People:
ADA Shannon Henderson
Bronx District Attorney's Office
198 East 161st Street
Bronx, NY 10451
Frances Y. Wang, J.
On November 18, 2018, defendant was arraigned on the charges of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second, Third and Fourth Degrees (P.L. §§ 265.03[3], 265.02[1], 265.01[1], respectively), Criminal Possession of a Firearm (P.L. § 265.01-b[1]) and Possession of Ammunition (A.C. 10-131[1][3]). The case was adjourned to November 23, 2018, for Grand Jury action. On November 23, 2018, the People stated that they had presented the case to the Grand Jury. The People, however, offered defendant to plead guilty to a single count of Attempted Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree contained in a superior court information, in full satisfaction of the charges, with a promised sentence of five years incarceration to be followed by five years post-release supervision. As part of the plea, defendant would have to waive his right to appeal. Defendant did not accept the offer and the case was adjourned to November 28, 2018, for Grand Jury action.
On November 28, 2018, defendant's attorney, William Schwarz, of the Assigned Counsel [*2]Plan pursuant to Article 18B of the County Law, stated in open court that he had conveyed the People's offer to defendant. Mr. Schwarz made a clear and detailed record that he informed his client about the minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment he would face as a violent predicate felon if convicted of the top count, a class C violent felony. He also stated that, one week earlier, he had reviewed video surveillance from several angles, video from police body cameras, photographs, and calls where defendant was speaking to someone while he was incarcerated at Rikers. Mr. Schwarz stated that he shared all of this information with defendant, and defendant informed him that he wanted to think about the People's offer.
After defendant's attorney spoke, defendant addressed the court and stated that he wanted to understand the "plea offer of getting a lower sentence" because he has mental health issues (P. 4).[FN1] Defendant claimed that he did not understand certain things involving the plea offer. Thereafter, Mr. Schwarz explained that he had already spoken to defendant for approximately one hour prior to the case being called. Additionally, Mr. Schwarz stated that he had spoken to defendant a week before and that he would not go forward unless he believed defendant "had a full understanding of the sentences that he was facing in the event of [a] conviction and what he is being offered today" (P. 5). Mr. Schwarz explained that defendant was hoping for a lower offer and that the People had informed him that if defendant was not interested in accepting the offer, it would be withdrawn. Further, Mr. Schwarz stated that if defendant chose not to accept the plea, he would run the risk of receiving a longer sentence. Finally, Mr. Schwarz noted that "as long as he understands that, whatever he decides, I am fine with it" (P. 6).
The Court then confirmed for defendant that what Mr. Schwarz said about the minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment he would face on the top charge was accurate. The Court also reminded defendant that it was ultimately his choice to decide whether or not to accept the People's offer. The Court informed defendant that since he mentioned he had mental health issues, it would not accept his guilty plea if he did not understand the proceeding. Thereafter, defendant inquired whether the People's offer was "going to still be on the table" (P. 8). The People stated that it was a one-time offer, and that if defendant rejected it, the offer would be withdrawn.
After the Court noted that since defendant exhibited reservations about accepting the People's offer, it would move forward with the case. Mr. Schwarz stated that defendant was interested in accepting the People's offer. Thereafter, the Court stated that since defendant claimed he was suffering from some type of mental health issue, it would not accept his plea of guilty unless it first determines that he understands the nature of the proceeding. Upon the Court's inquiry, defendant was able to state his name, age, date of birth, who his attorney is, and what the roles of his attorney and the prosecutor are. Defendant acknowledged that he had an opportunity to speak to his attorney about the possible defenses in his case. Although defendant stated that he was taking medication for his mental health issues, he admitted that it did not affect his ability to understand what was taking place in court.
Thereafter, defendant, again, asked if he could receive a lesser sentence. Mr. Schwarz, once again, stated that he explained to defendant, at length, about the People's evidence that was shared with him, including a video surveillance purportedly showing defendant firing a gun in [*3]the air. When the Court asked Mr. Schwarz whether defendant had any difficulty understanding him when they spoke at length, he stated, "I believe he truly understands the consequences of the plea or not pleading" (P. 15). When the Court inquired whether defendant had suffered from mental health issues and was under medication during the time periods when he pled guilty (even dating back to 2013), defendant replied yes. At the conclusion of the Court's inquiries, it determined that defendant was fit to enter a guilty plea to the charge of Attempted Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree contained in the superior court information.
Defendant then pled guilty to that crime, and also waived his right to appeal. Defendant, once again, but under oath this time, acknowledged that although he was taking medication for his mental health issues, it did not affect his ability to understand the nature of the proceeding. On December 17, 2018, a pre-sentence investigation report was generated by the New York City Department of Probation. The report indicated that defendant informed the probation officer that he did not want to take the plea. Defendant explained that he was not under any mental health medication for his mental illness when he pled guilty. Further, defendant informed the probation officer that he felt his attorney was not working in his best interest and he felt forced to take the plea. See Defendant's Pre-Sentence Investigation Report.
By motion, filed under seal on February 22, 2019, defendant, through his newly assigned 18B counsel, Pat Bonanno, moves to withdraw his previously entered guilty plea, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 220.60(3). In papers dated April 18, 2019, the People oppose defendant's motion. On May 16, 2019, Judge Rosenbleuth granted defendant's application for an examination pursuant to C.P.L. § 390.30. On June 26, 2019, while in court, Mr. Bonanno submitted a letter dated June 11, 2019, from Dr. C. Ho, Director of Student Education/Clinical Supervisor at the Restrictive Housing Unit ("RHU") at New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Correctional Health Services. The letter indicated that defendant had been in RHU since May 14, 2019. RHU is for patients in need of higher level care for mental health services while in punitive segregation. The letter stated that defendant had met with his primary clinician for weekly sessions and met the psychiatric provider on June 4, 2019. Defendant was prescribed psychotropic medications to treat his depressive and anxiety symptoms.
This Court received a report dated June 26, 2019, prepared by Dr. Anansa Brayton, the certified psychologist who evaluated defendant. The report indicates that defendant was evaluated on June 21, 2019. At the time of evaluation, defendant was receiving psychiatric treatment at Rikers and he reported that he was taking psychotropic medication to help with his mood. Dr. Brayton opined that defendant could benefit from ongoing mental health treatment to address his depressive symptoms and symptoms of anxiety. Further, the doctor indicated that based on the current evaluation, defendant has challenges related to substance use and psychiatric functioning.
For the reasons that follow, defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is summarily denied.
In support of his motion, defendant claims that at the time of the plea, he was on a prescribed medication regimen for his mental health issues, and therefore he was unable to voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly enter a plea of guilty. Defendant contends that he was unable to understand and appreciate the rights he was waiving by entering such a guilty plea. See Bonnano Affirmation, unnumbered p. 3.Defendant provides documentation showing that he [*4]received psychiatric medication and psychotherapy at an outpatient clinic in 2008, was prescribed antidepressant medication at Rikers in 2018, and was referred twice to mental health services during the same year. He was diagnosed with adjustment disorder and anxiety order in 2019. See Bonnano Affirmation, Exhibit A. Defendant has not included his own affidavit.
The People oppose the motion, arguing that at the time of defendant's plea, the Court was aware of defendant's mental health issues and that he was on medication, which led the Court to conduct a thorough colloquy about the nature and consequences of such a plea. Additionally, the People assert that defendant "repeatedly demonstrated that his ability to understand the proceedings was not hindered by his mental health issues or medication." See People's Memorandum of Law, p. 3. Furthermore, the People argue that defendant has failed to demonstrate that his cognitive ability was impaired by either his mental health issue or the medication he was taking, and thus this motion should be denied. See People's Memorandum of Law, pp. 3-4.
Criminal Procedure Law § 220.60(3) states, in relevant part, that "at any time before the imposition of sentence, the court in its discretion may permit a defendant who has entered a plea . . . to withdraw such plea." The determination of whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. People v. Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 485 (2002)."The established rule is that a guilty plea will be upheld as valid if it was entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. . . [but] there is no requirement for a uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants." People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 (1993) (citations and internal quotations omitted). A motion to withdraw a guilty plea will not be granted merely for the asking given that a guilty plea generally marks the end of a criminal case and is not a gateway to further litigation. Alexander, 97 NY2d at 485.
In Alexander, the defendant, while awaiting sentence, moved to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he was not competent when he entered it. The trial court ordered a psychiatric examination pursuant to C.P.L. § 730. In the reports, both examining physicians concluded that the defendant was fit to proceed, but noted he required medication for his personality disorder. They determined that the defendant was neither an incapacitated person nor was he suffering from psychosis or impaired cognition. They physicians noted that the defendant entered the guilty plea while emotionally distraught. The trial court denied the defendant's motion. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant's protestations as to his incompetence, confusion and innocence rang hollow. Further, the Court found that although the defendant had a history of mental illness for which he was taking medication, his purported failure to take his medication on the day he pled guilty did not constitute a lack of capacity to plead guilty. The Court held that a defendant who is emotionally distraught when pleading guilty affords no basis to withdraw the plea. Alexander, 97 NY2d at 486. Furthermore, the Court noted that the defendant's familiarity with the criminal justice system spoke volume as he was a veteran offender well oriented with criminal proceedings, resulting in 42 guilty pleas.
Here, there is no question that defendant has a history of mental health issues for which he was taking medication at the time of his plea. However, there is nothing in the record to suggest that he lacked the capacity to plead guilty due to his mental health issues. To the contrary, the extensive plea minutes demonstrate that defendant was alert and knowledgeable enough to plead guilty voluntarily. Under oath, during defendant's plea allocution, he told this [*5]Court that, after consulting with his attorney, he understood the nature of the proceeding and that his guilty plea entailed a waiver of various rights. Defendant specifically acknowledged on two separate occasions that his medication did not affect his ability to understand the proceeding and enter a guilty plea. There is no question that defendant, who is 23-years old and a veteran offender with more than 20 guilty pleas, was rational and coherent, and assured this Court that he understood the meaning of his plea and was pleading guilty of his own free will. Although the plea minutes indicate that defendant was reluctant to plead guilty because he was hoping for a lesser sentence, this Court afforded him a sufficient opportunity to confer with counsel and consider whether to go forward with the plea.
Under these circumstances, the record establishes that defendant's guilty plea was entered into knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. Accordingly, defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is denied. See People v. Thomas, 132 AD3d 423 (1st Dept. 2015) (motion to withdraw guilty plea properly denied where the defendant, during the plea allocution, was rational and coherent, and assured the court that he understood the meaning of his plea and was pleading guilty of his own free will; the plea was voluntary and not the product of the defendant's claimed lack of medication); People v. Gomez, 102 AD3d 636 (1st Dept. 2013) (court properly denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea where the defendant's claim that his guilty plea was not entered into voluntarily due to his mental and physical condition was undermined by the court's thorough plea allocution, in which the court specifically ascertained that the defendant's illnesses did not impair his ability to understand what he was doing); People v. Wilson, 45 AD3d 407 (1st Dept. 2007) (court properly denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea due to failure to comprehend the plea proceeding because of alleged mental illness and side effects from psychiatric medication; the plea allocution showed that the defendant was completely lucid and he specifically acknowledged that his medication did not affect his ability to understand the proceedings and enter a guilty plea.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated: July 11, 2019
Bronx, New York
FRANCES Y. WANG, J.C.C. Footnotes
Footnote 1:Numerical references preceded by "P." are to the minutes of the plea.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
