You are here: / / FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT...

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA RENDERED THE PLEA INVALID.

he Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction by guilty plea because the defendant was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision at the time of the plea. Defendant was told by the sentencing judge (at the time of the plea) if he violated interim probation (which was to lead to a felony probation) he would be sentenced to four years in prison. No mention was made of postrelease supervision. Defendant violated the terms of the interim probation and was sentenced to four years incarceration plus two years of postrelease supervision:

… [I]t is well settled that, for a defendant’s plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered into, a court must advise him or her of the direct consequences of a plea prior to sentencing, including the existence and duration of any postrelease supervision requirement … . Here, as the People concede, at the time of his plea, defendant was not properly made aware of the postrelease supervision component of his sentence. Accordingly, defendant’s decision to plead guilty was not a knowing, voluntary and intelligent one and, therefore, the judgment of conviction must be reversed … . People v Binion, 2015 NY Slip Op 09142, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

CRIMINAL LAW (POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF)/SENTENCING (POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF)/POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF)/PLEA (GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY IF DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION)

You might also like
RE-READING THE ORIGINAL JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT ADDRESS THE CONFUSION EXPRESSED IN THE NOTE FROM THE JURY; IN ADDITION, THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE INITIAL DETERMINATION WHETHER A WITNESS WAS QUALIFIED TO OFFER EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Court Should Have Granted a Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction on Ineffective-Assistance Grounds
Delay In Bringing Action Seeking to Stop a Development Project Which Had Been Proceeding for Years Precluded the Grant of a Preliminary Injunction, Despite the Apparent Legitimate Nature of the Allegations
TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (THIRD DEPT).
THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE RESPONDENTS (MOTHER AND FATHER) VIOLATED THE ORDER OF SUPERVISION; IN THIS ORDER-VIOLATION PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED UPON AND REFERRED TO EVIDENCE, SOME OF WHICH WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, FROM THE UNDERLYING NEGLECT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
THE PURPOSE AND REACH OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS COMPLEX CASE INVOLVING ALLEGED MISUSE OF LAND GIFTED TO THE AUDUBON SOCIETY AS “FOREVER WILD” AND SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ARGUMENT THE DEED WAS VOID AB INITIO AND THEREFORE NEVER TRIGGERD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS REJECTED; THE DEED WAS DEEMED “VOIDABLE” AND THE STATUTE HAD THEREFORE RUN; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY SHOULD NOT HAVE SENT THE MATTER BACK TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).
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

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

PLAINTIFF, WHO SOLD GOODS TO NEW JERSEY COMPANIES FOR WHICH IT WAS NOT FULLY... DEFENDANT DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; MANAGEMENT...