In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals determined Penal Law 70.85 is constitutional. Section 70.85 allows the resentencing of a defendant who was not informed about post-release supervision to a sentence that does not include post-release supervision. The statute was enacted to provide a remedy, other than vacation of the guilty plea, when a plea was entered in the absence of an explanation of the post-release supervision part of the sentence:
By now it is well established that the State Constitution requires a trial court to ensure that a defendant has a “full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences” … . A guilty plea made without notification from the court about the direct consequence of a PRS term violates the Constitution because it could not have been “a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action”… . * * *
Mindful of the constitutional rights at issue…, we find that section 70.85 is a constitutionally permissible legislative remedy for the defectiveness of the plea. Defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary because the Legislature has changed the sentencing laws governing pleas vulnerable to …challenge. Section 70.85 ensures that defendant, who is no longer subject to PRS, pleaded guilty with the requisite awareness of the direct consequences of his plea. People v Pignataro, 213, CtApp 12-12-13