The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday decided against expanding the right to jury trial for immigrants facing low-level charges that could result in their deportation.

The decision applies in cases in New York City courts.

The high court did not expand the scope of a 2018 decision finding a right to jury trial for immigrants facing misdemeanor charges that could expose them to possible deportation.

The Court of Appeals in a two-page decision ruled that a guilty plea entered by an immigrant in Manhattan could stand because it was made as part of a deal with prosecutors.

"The record as a whole demonstrates defendant's knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights and there is no basis to disturb his guilty plea," the court wrote.

The immigrant, Sixtus Udeke, was initially facing class A misdemeanor charges from prosecutors for violating a temporary order of protection. Udeke was spotted entering a subway station in Manhattan with the person he was supposed to stay away from.

He agreed to plead the charges down to a class B misdemeanor, which comes with different trial rights in New York City than higher-level charges.

Under state law, defendants in New York City are allowed to be denied a trial by jury if the maximum penalty of a charge is less than six months in jail. That's the case for class B misdemeanors—the charge Udeke was pleading down to.

That's not the case in other areas of the state. Outside New York City, individuals can ask for a trial by jury for any level of crime above a violation. The limit only exists in New York City because, as court officials have said, it could place a strain on judicial proceedings.

That changed last year when the Court of Appeals handed down its decision in People v. Suazo, which essentially provided a loophole in the law for immigrants.

Saylor Suazo, the defendant in that case, had challenged the state's law denying him the right to a jury trial when he was charged with a class B misdemeanor. He had argued that, if he was convicted, he could be eligible for deportation—a penalty stronger than six months in jail.

The Court of Appeals agreed. It ruled that the severity of deportation allowed immigrants the right to a jury trial in New York City under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, even on class B misdemeanors. It was the first time the high court had weighed the issue.

The Suazo decision, however, did not guarantee immigrants the right to a trial by jury. The Court of Appeals ruled that such a right would only exist if the immigrant could show a conviction may result in their deportation. The burden is on the immigrant to show as much.

Udeke's case was decided about three years before the decision in Suazo, but his attorney argued before the Court of Appeals that he, too, should have had the right to a jury trial. He was represented by Ben Wiener from the Center for Appellate Litigation.

Wiener declined to comment on the decision from the Court of Appeals on Thursday.

Udeke's case differed from Suazo in that he pleaded guilty to a class B misdemeanor as part of a deal with prosecutors. Suazo was convicted on that level of crime during a bench trial.

In Suazo's case, prosecutors in the Bronx had reduced the charges against him to a class B misdemeanor, which meant, at the time, he wouldn't receive a jury trial. In Udeke's case, the Court of Appeals wrote, he had agreed to the class B misdemeanor as part of a plea deal.

"Defendant pleaded guilty to a class B misdemeanor in satisfaction of two accusatory instruments charging him with class A misdemeanors," the court wrote. "The class A misdemeanor counts in the instruments were not amended to lesser offenses as was done in People v Suazo."

At issue in the case was a conversation between Udeke and New York City Criminal Court Judge Laurie Peterson.

Before Udeke accepted the plea, Peterson had explained to him the rights he was giving up through the agreement with prosecutors. When she told him he was waiving his right to a trial by jury, Udeke asked for clarification.

"By jury?" Udeke asked, according to the record.

He was confused because, as part of the plea deal, his charge had been reduced to a class B misdemeanor. At the time, that meant he wouldn't be eligible for a jury trial. Peterson clarified that Udeke's right to a jury trial would have depended on how the case played out.

"A trial by a jury or a judge, depending on how the People proceeded," Peterson responded. Udeke said he understood the terms of the deal.

Wiener, Udeke's attorney, had argued before the Court of Appeals last month that, in light of Suazo, Peterson had misrepresented his rights. Because of the finding in Suazo, he had argued, Udeke should have been told he could seek a jury trial, regardless of the charge.

That same view was held by Associate Judge Jenny Rivera of the Court of Appeals. She wrote in a dissenting opinion Thursday that Udeke was misinformed by Peterson of his right to a jury trial, even though his case was decided years before Suazo.

"Since defendant would be entitled to a jury trial under our holding in Suazo, the court's statement at the colloquy that he would not be entitled to a jury trial should the People prosecute him on the reduced B misdemeanor was incorrect," Rivera wrote.

"Therefore, defendant's plea was not intelligent and voluntary because it was based on this misinformation," she continued.

Rivera was joined on the dissent by Associate Judge Rowan Wilson. Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and Associate Judges Leslie Stein, Eugene Fahey, Michael Garcia and Paul Feinman all signed onto the court's opinion, which didn't name an author.

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which prosecuted Udeke, did not comment on the decision.

READ MORE: