The court held that Penal Law § 60.12 hearings are nonwaivable because the Legislature intended the alternative sentencing framework to correct a systemic failure in how the criminal justice system treats domestic violence survivors.
Defendant N.H. faced up to 25 years in prison on an attempted murder degree charge after she struck and dragged a woman with her vehicle during an altercation at a party. N.H. had a documented history of abuse by her ex-boyfriend, R.L., and stated she ran over the victim while fleeing him.
N.H. sought a DVSJA hearing to establish her eligibility for a reduced sentence. Instead, prosecutors offered a plea deal: N.H. would plead guilty to first-degree reckless assault and receive five years in prison, but only if she waived her right to the DVSJA hearing and her right to appeal.
Defense counsel argued the waiver condition went against the "spirit of why the law was created," but the trial court accepted the plea, concluding the hearing was waivable. The Appellate Division affirmed.
In a decision authored by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the DVSJA’s purpose "transcends the individual concerns of a particular defendant."
"The Legislature reimagined the appropriate sentencing ranges, including alternative non-incarceratory sentences in certain cases, for this particular subgroup of defendants who were themselves victims of domestic abuse," Rivera wrote. "The DVSJA is thus corrective action on a large scale, meant not merely to address excessive sentences on an individual level, but to recalibrate the criminal legal system to account for the trauma experienced by a class of defendants which led to their chargeable actions."
The court reasoned that allowing waiver would "eviscerate this alternative sentencing pathway for the vast majority of domestic violence survivor defendants who plead guilty rather than proceeding to a trial."
Judge Halligan concurred, arguing the result follows from the statutory text rather than public policy. She noted the DVSJA applies "where a court is imposing sentence upon a person," suggesting the Legislature intended relief to be available in every appropriate case.
Judge Cannataro dissented, joined by Judges Garcia and Singas. He argued the statute contains no mandatory language requiring a hearing in every case and that defendants should be free to waive the opportunity for a more certain plea bargain.
"The opportunity to seek DVSJA relief, like most rights bargained with during plea negotiations, is waivable," Cannataro wrote. "Nothing indicates that the legislature intended to prohibit a defendant from waiving the opportunity to prove their DVSJA eligibility where they, in their informed judgment, conclude that a negotiated plea is more advantageous."
The case is remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings.