*1 Defendant, Teasha Fields, moves this Court, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §220.60 (3), to permit her to withdraw her plea of guilty to Petit Larceny (PL §155.25). The defendant claims that: she pleaded guilty solely to gain her release from incarceration since she was unable to post bail; she regrets her decision because as a certified substance abuse counselor, a misdemeanor conviction will preclude recertification; and she is innocent.*2
The People oppose the motion and assert that the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the Court file, the recording of defendant’s plea allocution,1 the recording of defendant’s nighttime arraignment, Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Affirmation in Support, and the People’s Affirmation and Memorandum of Law in Opposition.Of the three arguments presented by defendant, the first prong of defendant’s argument appears to be a case of first impression considering the breadth of a recent ruling in the Dutchess County Supreme Court in People ex rel. Desgranges v. Anderson, 2018 NY Misc LEXIS *431, 2018 NY Slip Op 28036 (Sup Ct, Dutchess County [2018]). In People ex. rel. Desgranges, the defendant, who was incarcerated for three (3) months on a Petit Larceny (PL §155.25) charge, brought an Article 7 writ of habeas corpus before the Appellate Division Second Department based on his claim that he was incarcerated due to his inability to post bail. The Appellate Division referred the matter to Judge Rosa of the Dutchess County Supreme Court, for oral arguments and a decision. Since the defendant in Desgranges pleaded guilty and was released from jail the very morning of the hearing, the Court did not rule on the writ, but issued a declaratory judgment.In a sweeping ruling, the Desgranges Court declared that the failure of an arraignment court to inquire about the defendant’s ability to pay the sum of bail set is a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution and the NY Constitution. In the instant case, the defendant did not bring a writ, but is challenging her guilty plea by asserting that she took the plea solely because she wanted to end her continued incarceration due to her inability to make bail. In light of the Desgranges decision, this Court must not only look at the voluntariness of defendant’s plea of guilty at the time the plea was taken, but also look at the defendant’s arraignment to determine whether the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated such that the defendant felt impelled to plead guilty to secure her release from jail. If a constitutional violation occurred, must this Court grant the defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea of guilty?For the reasons articulated hereunder, the relief sought is denied.FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORYOn April 11, 2017, at approximately 3:40 P.M., Fields entered a Shop Rite located at 955 South Central Avenue, Scarsdale, New York, took one box of Allegra, two boxes of Nexium,
