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

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION FOR ONE COUNT INFECTED THE PLEAS TO THE OTHER COUNTS AS WELL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty pleas, determined that the failure to inform the defendant of the period of postrelease supervision for one count infected the pleas to the other counts as well:

​

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of three counts of kidnapping in the second degree … and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree … . During the plea colloquy, County Court indicated that it would sentence defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of 3 to 6 years pursuant to Penal Law § 60.12. Section 60.12 allows a court to impose indeterminate terms of imprisonment for certain defendants who are facing determinate terms of sentences under section 70.02 if the defendant has been the victim of domestic abuse. The court here in fact imposed concurrent, indeterminate terms of 3 to 6 years pursuant to section 60.12 (2) (a) for the kidnapping counts, but imposed a concurrent determinate sentence of 3½ years with 5 years of postrelease supervision on the weapon count pursuant to sections 70.02 (3) (b) and 70.45 (2) (f).

The People correctly concede that the court failed to fulfill its obligation to advise defendant at the time of her plea that the sentence imposed upon her conviction of the weapon count would include a period of postrelease supervision… . We therefore reverse the judgment and vacate defendant’s plea … . Contrary to the People’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the entire plea must be vacated and not merely the plea on the weapon count. The entire plea agreement was infected by the court’s error in failing to advise defendant of postrelease supervision, and this is not a case in which the counts may be treated separately … . People v Maxwell, 2017 NY Slip Op 08986, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION FOR ONE COUNT INFECTED THE PLEAS TO THE OTHER COUNTS AS WELL (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION FOR ONE COUNT INFECTED THE PLEAS TO THE OTHER COUNTS AS WELL (FOURTH DEPT))/POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION FOR ONE COUNT INFECTED THE PLEAS TO THE OTHER COUNTS AS WELL (FOURTH DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE  (FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION FOR ONE COUNT INFECTED THE PLEAS TO THE OTHER COUNTS AS WELL (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MED MAL ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE DECEDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A BLOOD TRANSFUSION ON THE GROUND THE ISSUE WAS NOT PLED AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION WHEN THE DEFENSE INDICATED IT WAS NOT GOING TO CALL THREE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ATTEMPTED STRANGULATION SECOND DEGREE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ON THAT CHARGE ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HE WILLFULLY VIOLATED A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER, ALTHOUGH FATHER COMPLETED THE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION, THE APPEAL IS NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF A CIVIL CONTEMPT FINDING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PETITIONERS (THREE NYS LEGISLATORS AND AN ADVOCACY GROUP) DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS ALLOWING ISOLATION AND QUARANTINE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC (FOURTH DEPT).
Hearing Required to Determine Whether Defense Counsel’s Failure to Take Appropriate Steps to Have a Federal Prisoner Testify for the Defense Constituted Ineffective Assistance
DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED JUROR 15 WAS ONE OF TWO JURORS WHO GAVE A NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT HOLD IT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IF HE DID NOT TESTIFY; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE RECORD DOES NOT IDENTIFY JUROR 15 AS ONE OF THE TWO JURORS AND DID NOT DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HIS COUNSEL PROVIDED WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION.

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

DEFENDANT PROPERLY ASSESSED 80 POINTS FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN THIS SEX OFFENDER... 82 YEAR SENTENCE FOR THREE BURGLARIES AND RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT DEEMED TOO HARSH...