You are here: / / Preservation by Objection Not Required When Defendant First Learns of Post-Release...
,

Preservation by Objection Not Required When Defendant First Learns of Post-Release Supervision Moments Before Sentencing

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, the Third Department vacated defendant's plea to a probation violation because no mention of a period of post-release supervision was made until moments before sentencing.  The court determined there was no need to preserve the error by objection because the defendant had so little time between notification of the post-release supervision and sentencing:

…[W]hether preservation is necessary hinges upon whether the defendant “had ample opportunity to object after the initial [reference to postrelease supervision] was made and before sentence was formally imposed” … . Thus, where “the court first mention[s] postrelease supervision only moments before imposing the sentence,” thereby depriving the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to weigh his or her options at that stage of the proceeding, preservation is not required … .

Although we are mindful that the matter before us concerns a plea of guilty to a violation of probation — as opposed to a plea of guilty to a crime — the analysis employed by the Court of Appeals …is equally applicable here. As noted previously, County Court made no mention of postrelease supervision during the course of defendant's plea colloquy …, nor does the record indicate that defendant otherwise was made aware — prior to entering her plea to the probation violation — that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence … . Rather, the need to impose a period of postrelease supervision was first raised at sentencing — quite literally moments before defendant's sentence actually was imposed … . Under these circumstances, preservation was not required, and County Court's failure to apprise defendant that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence mandates reversal. People v Bolivar, 2014 NY Slip Op 02980, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

You might also like
Property Purchased by Husband Upon Which a “Shell” of a House Was Constructed Prior to Marriage Should Not Have Been Deemed Marital Property/Husband’s Failure to Affirmatively Prove What Portion of His Savings Account Was Separate Property Justified Dividing It Equally/Wife’s Failure to Prove How She Contributed to the Appreciation of the Marital Residence Precluded the Award of Any Appreciation in Value to Her
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
COUNTY COURT DISMISSED THE PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND COUNT; THE PEOPLE APPEALED; COUNTY COURT THEN STAYED ITS DISMISSAL, HELD A TRIAL, AND DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED; AFTER THE CONVICTION THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AS MOOT; THE DEFENDANT APPEALED; THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO STAY THE DISMISSAL AND GO TO TRIAL ON THAT COUNT; THE CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCATION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT REQUIRED, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LIMIT THE EXPERT TESTIMONY PLAINTIFF COULD OFFER AT TRIAL DID NOT LIMIT THE ISSUES TO BE TRIED; THEREFORE ANY APPEAL MUST AWAIT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL; APPEAL DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE CHARGING DOCUMENT AFTER AN INDICTMENT HAS COME DOWN; IN ADDITION THE SCI HERE WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL CHARGE OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).
People v Rudolph (Requiring Sentencing Court to Consider Youthful Offender Status for All Eligible Defendants) Applied Retroactively to 2008 Conviction (on Direct Appeal)
PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED DUE DILIGENCE IN ATTEMPTING TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE BY ALTERNATIVE MEANS (FIRST 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

Issuance of a “No Knock” Warrant to Take a DNA Sample Was Not Justified—Sample... 241 (6) Cause of Action Improperly Dismissed—Plaintiff Tripped on Piece...