You are here: / / Failure to Inform Defendant of the Specific Period of Postrelease Supervision...

Failure to Inform Defendant of the Specific Period of Postrelease Supervision Applicable to the Offense Defendant Pled To Required Vacation of Sentence

Over a dissent, the Second Department determined the failure to advise the defendant of the specific postrelease-supervision aspect of his sentence at the time of the entry of the plea pursuant to a plea agreement required that the sentence be vacated, even though defendant was informed his maximum sentencing exposure included a period of postrelease supervision:

…[A]fter informing the defendant that his maximum sentencing exposure included a period of postrelease supervision, the court extended a specific sentence offer, specifying the range of the terms of imprisonment involved …, and this offer omitted any reference to postrelease supervision. The court has a duty to ensure, at the time a plea of guilty is entered, that the defendant is aware of the terms of the plea …. The County Court’s failure to inform the defendant, at the time he entered his plea of guilty, that his sentence would, in fact, include a period of postrelease supervision, prevented his plea from being entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. People v Divalentino, 2013 NY Slip Op 06013, 9-25-13

 

You might also like
BECAUSE THE B MISDEMEANOR CARRIES DEPORTATION AS A POTENTIAL PENALTY, DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A SURPLUS AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY; DEFENDANT HAD ENTERED A HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT WITH CITIBANK; CITIBANK, NOT DEFENDANT, WAS ENTITLED TO THE SURPLUS FUNDS (SECOND DEPT).
Prior Ties to New York Sufficient to Justify Jurisdiction of New York Courts over Custody Proceedings Brought by the Child’s Grandmother Two Months After the Child and Mother Moved to Florida
Assumption of Risk Extends to Construction of Baseball Field
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT IN THE FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING BECAUSE ESSENTIAL FACTS WERE IN DISPUTE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SOUGHT ONLY CANCELLATION OF A MORTGAGE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED THE NOTE AS WELL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER, USE OF ALIAS WAS NOT A FRAUD UPON THE COURT.
Amendment of Summons and Complaint after the Statute of Limitations Has Run

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Question of Fact Whether Initial Broker Entitled to Commission Sentencing Court Can Correct Illegal Sentence If Within Initially-Stated Ra...