People v. Ogden

Brief filed: 8/26 
Court: Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Year of Decision: Pending

Read full-text amicus brief (PDF, 479KB)opens in new window

Whether adolescent cognitive and psychosocial development affects a juvenile defendant’s ability to knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive appellate rights as part of a guilty plea, including the right to challenge the denial of a motion to remove the case to Family Court.

Guilty Pleas

Javyon J. Ogden pleaded guilty in Wayne County Court to first-degree burglary and first-degree assault. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed his conviction, concluding that he validly waived his right to appeal and that the waiver precluded review of the denial of his motion to remove the case to Family Court. Two judges dissented, concluding that Ogden had not knowingly and intelligently waived his challenge to the removal decision and that the case should have been transferred to Family Court. The case is now pending before the New York Court of Appeals.

APA and its fellow amici argue that psychological research casts substantial doubt on adolescents’ ability to knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive appellate rights during plea bargaining. Brain regions responsible for advanced cognition, judgment, planning, impulse control, and abstract reasoning continue developing into early adulthood, while systems associated with emotional processing and reward seeking mature earlier and are particularly reactive during adolescence.

Adolescents consequently may have greater difficulty understanding complex legal language and abstract rights, considering multiple future consequences, and weighing long-term risks against the immediate benefits of ending a criminal proceeding. Research also indicates that stress, time pressure, unfamiliar legal settings, and influence from prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and parents can further impair adolescents’ decision-making and increase their tendency to comply with authority figures. APA therefore maintains that these developmental and situational factors should inform whether an adolescent defendant’s waiver of appellate rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Pending