The New York Court of Appeals denied a request from a defendant Tuesday to set aside his plea agreement with prosecutors on murder and assault charges after he said he didn't understand to what extent he would have to cooperate with law enforcement in a different case involving his family.

Alexis Rodriguez, who plead guilty to those charges as part of the deal, was seeking to have his plea agreement withdrawn because he was afraid his testimony against another individual would put his family's safety at risk, according to a dissent against the court's decision.

Associate Judge Jenny Rivera wrote in the dissent that it was the first time the Court of Appeals has addressed such a question of what standards should apply to a plea agreement that the defendant claimed to not have completely understood.

“This appeal presents an open question that this Court has never addressed: what interpretive standards apply to the terms of a cooperation agreement when, as here, a defendant claims to have neither intended nor understood the agreement to include the People's demand for assistance with an unspecified criminal investigation or prosecution?” Rivera wrote.

The majority opinion, on which all but two justices of the court concurred, affirmed a decision by the Appellate Division, Third Department last year that said the plea agreement signed by the defendant was “fatally overbroad” and therefore allowed prosecutors to compel his testimony.

Rodriguez had previously been charged with the murder of Jose Sanchez and his brother. Rodriguez told prosecutors the attack was retaliation for a previous incident in which Sanchez and a few accomplices invaded his home and threatened his family over money owed related to a minivan. Rodriguez told Sanchez to take the minivan in place of the money, which he did.

Before they left, one of the accomplices, named Victor Marin, told Rodriguez that his family would be killed if he reported the incident to police.

Rodriguez was later charged with the murder of Sanchez and the assault of his brother. He agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence related to those charges. He had been sentenced to 20 years to life in prison on the murder conviction, but the court adjourned his sentence on the assault conviction pending his compliance with the plea deal.

The agreement stated, in part, that “Rodriguez will cooperate completely and truthfully with law enforcement authorities … on all matters in which his cooperation is requested including but not limited to the prosecution of [defendant's accomplices] on charges related to the murder of Jose Sanchez and the assault of [Sanchez brother].”

Close to a year after Rodriguez entered into the agreement, prosecutors from the Schenectady County District Attorney's Office asked him to testify in their case against Marin in his burglary trial related to the home invasion he had allegedly committed against Rodriguez and his family. Rodriguez refused to testify because, Rivera said, he was afraid for his family's safety in retaliation to his testimony.

“[Rodriguez] attested by affidavit that he had a justifiable belief that the cooperation agreement only required him to cooperate in the murder and assault prosecution and had he known the People would require him to testify at a public trial regarding the burglary and home invasion he would have rejected the agreement out of concern for his family's safety,” Rivera wrote.

His refusal to testify ended up breaking his plea agreement, the trial court decided, which added 20 years in prison to his sentence on the assault conviction, rather than having that time served concurrently with the murder conviction under the deal. The majority opinion, issued in a memorandum, said that, regardless of that consequence, the agreement was binding.

“Before County Court accepted his guilty plea, defendant confirmed on the record that he understood this aspect of the cooperation agreement,” the decision said. “County Court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on his claimed subjective misinterpretation of the agreement or by concluding, to the contrary, that defendant reasonably understood that his cooperation in the Marin prosecution was required.”

Rivera argued in her dissent that, rather than consider the arrangement to be broken, the court should have either allowed Rodriguez to withdraw his plea agreement with prosecutors or maintain the deal to allow his sentences for both charges to be served concurrently. Rodriguez would not have entered into the arrangement if he knew at the time he couldn't follow through, she said.

“Defendant surely would not have entered an agreement to plead guilty knowing at the time that he could never fulfill the promise without endangering his family, thus ensuring an added two decades of incarceration without any commensurate benefit,” Rivera wrote.

Associate Judge Rowan Wilson concurred with Rivera on the dissent. Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and Associate Judges Leslie Stein, Eugene Fahey, Michael Garcia, and Paul Feinman signed onto the majority's memorandum.

Paul Connolly, a solo practitioner from the Albany area who represented Rodriguez, said he was disappointed in the decision and will be reviewing their options in the case.

“We're disappointed in the decision and we had hoped for a reversal. We respectfully submit that the dissent is correct in this case,” Connolly said. “We just have to deal with the decision we got and I'll advise my client that he has different avenues to pursue relief, such as in federal court.”

Assistant District Attorney Peter Willis from Schenectady County said, when reached by phone, that he agreed with the court's decision and was pleased with the outcome.

READ MORE: