County Court, Onondaga County, February 10, 2022

Annaleigh Porter for defendant.

William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney (Colin Lynch of counsel), for plaintiff.

The defendant, Stephon Bachus, has made a motion for an order compelling reinstatement of the September 11, 2020 plea offer in the above captioned matter.

Defense counsel contends that pursuant to CPL 245.20 (1) the People are required to disclose all information discoverable under that section "before certain kinds of pleas." Defense counsel cites People v McConnell (49 NY2d 340, 349 [1980]), that "should it come to be believed that the State can renege on its plea bargains" that there would be a "detrimental effect on the criminal justice system" which would result. The McConnell case is based on a vastly different set of circumstances (id.). In that case, the judge reneged on a promise based upon the defendant's testimony (id.). When the defendant returned to get the promised sentence, after testifying to his detriment, the judge refused to honor the plea negotiation (id.). That is not the case here.

The portion of the transcript relating to the September 11, 2020 appearance (as annexed to the defense counsel's motion) shows that there was some discussion off the record between the prosecutor and defense counsel resulting in a downward deviation from an original plea offer made by the People. ADA Lynch states, "I would be willing to come down to five years incarceration with a four year post release supervision." He goes on to state that he wished to put the new offer on the record to "see if the Defendant was willing to accept that offer, or we were going to proceed with the hearing." The defense counsel then goes on the record to reject the offer. The record is clear to the court that the offer is good if the hearing does not proceed.

Defense counsel argues that the results of the DNA analysis would have been helpful in assisting defense counsel in advising the defendant regarding the offer on September 11, 2020. The court does not deny it may have been helpful. However, the DNA test was not done on that date. In fact the People's motion to compel the defendant to give a DNA sample was granted on December 5, 2020. The DNA test in this matter was not required to prove the People's case but was done to enhance their case. Further, the DNA evidence was, in fact, disclosed in{**74 Misc 3d at 802} accordance with the provisions of CPL 245.20 (1) (j). Namely, the People received the results of the DNA test and on the same date, June 27, 2021, provided same to defense counsel.

The court acknowledges the importance of CPL article 245 and the legislative intent in enacting [*2]same. However, it would be counterintuitive to glean from that piece of legislation that the People are in the untenable position of providing lab results prior to making any offers in a case. This is especially true when, as in this case, the lab result is not required to be provided at trial to convict the defendant. To read the legislation in this manner would encourage the People to try each case and not make any offers until the eleventh hour. The wheels of justice would screech to a halt.

The court has considered the motion and opposition submitted and finds that the People are not required to reinstate the plea offer made to the defendant in the above referenced matter on September 11, 2020. The record on September 11, 2020, is clear that the defendant would either take the offer or a hearing would ensue. The People followed the provisions of the CPL in providing the DNA evidence in accordance with the CPL.

Therefore, defendant's motion for an order compelling reinstatement of the September 11, 2020 plea offer is hereby denied.