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

Failure to Inform Defendant of the Period of Postrelease Supervision Required Reversal in the Absence of an Objection

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s conviction must be reversed because he was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision (PRS) at the time of the plea, and he could not be expected to object because he was not informed of the PRS until the end of the sentencing hearing:

…[D]efendant was not required to preserve for our review his challenge to the imposition of PRS under these circumstances. “A defendant cannot be expected to object to a constitutional deprivation of which [he] is unaware . . . [W]here the defendant was only notified of the PRS term at the end of the sentencing hearing, the defendant can hardly be expected to move to withdraw [the] plea on a ground of which [he or she] has no knowledge’ . . . And, in that circumstance, the failure to seek to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment does not preclude appellate review of the due process claim” … . Furthermore, “[b]ecause a defendant pleading guilty to a determinate sentence must be aware of the [PRS] component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action, the failure of a court to advise of postrelease supervision requires reversal of the conviction” (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245). “[T]he record does not make clear, as required by Catu, that at the time defendant took his plea, he was aware that the terms of the court’s promised sentence included a period of PRS” because only the term of incarceration of 20 years was stated on the record … . While a term of PRS was mentioned earlier in the plea negotiations, it is undisputed that there was no mention of PRS at the plea proceeding and, based on our review of the record, we conclude that defendant was not “advised of what the sentence would be, including its PRS term, at the outset of the sentencing proceeding” … . People v Rives, 2015 NY Slip Op 02316, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

You might also like
IN RESPONSE TO A BATSON INQUIRY, THE PROSECUTOR’S REASON FOR STRIKING THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR IN FACT RELATED TO ANOTHER PROSPECTIVE JUROR FOR WHOM DEFENDANT HAD EXERCISED A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE NEAR A SUSPECTED DRUG HOUSE IN A HIGH CRIME AREA GAVE RISE TO ONLY A GROUNDED SUSPICION; THE ATTEMPT TO STOP THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE SEIZED EVIDENCE AND THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA, WHICH ENCOMPASSED AN UNRELATED OFFENSE, WAS VACATED IN ITS ENTIRETY (FOURTH DEPT).
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF TENANTS ALLEGING LANDLORDS’ MISHANDLING OF SECURITY DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE RELEASE DID NOT APPLY TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT AND THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFFS JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS; THE FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
No Appeal Lies from an Order Entered Upon a Default
In Deciding the Sequence of Convictions, the Original Sentence Date Controls, Not the Date of Resentencing to Cure a Post-Release-Supervision Flaw
Restaurant Chair Collapsed: No Question of Fact About Constructive Notice of Condition of the Chair/Res Ipsa Loquitur Did Not Apply
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DENYING THAT HE SOLD COCAINE AND DESCRIBING THE PROCEEDINGS AS CORRUPT WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

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

Motion to Vacate Conviction Based Upon Victim’s Recantation Should Not... Court’s Failure to Elicit Unequivocal Declarations Jurors Could Set Aside...