While in custody for an alleged home invasion, D. Jones admitted to losing a pistol. That confession, coupled with DNA uncovered at the scene, enabled officers to link the guy to yet another crime.
After he pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary and robbery, Jones appealed. While he claimed his plea was coerced, the Appellate Division, Third Department, rejected that argument because it wasn't properly before the court. (Apparently, Jones failed to ask the trial court to vacate his conviction, and had withdrawn a request that his plea be rescinded.) It also didn't agree with the argument that his counsel had provided "ineffective assistance," because any contemplated motion practice would have had "little chance of success."
And in light of the guy's criminal history, his "inconsistent expressions of responsibility and remorse," and his violent propensity--which included pistol-whipping victims in the vicinity of a three-year-old child--the AD3 affirmed the outcome.
Did they give him a fair crack of the whip?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Jones