You are here: / / THE COURT, DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE PROSECUTOR WERE UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION...
,

THE COURT, DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE PROSECUTOR WERE UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR A PAROLE SUPERVISION SENTENCE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY; THEREFORE THE MATTER CAN BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not eligible for a parole supervision sentence and the court, defense counsel and the prosecutor mistakenly believed defendant was eligible. Defendant’s guilty plea was based upon the understanding the court would consider such a sentence (which the court ultimately did not impose). Because all parties misunderstood the law, defendant could not be expected to have preserved the error by moving to withdraw his plea and the matter can therefore be considered on appeal:

… [W]e conclude that defendant’s plea should be vacated because “[i]t is impossible to have confidence, on a record like this, that defendant had a clear understanding of what he was doing when he entered his plea” … . In short, we “cannot countenance a conviction that seems to be based on complete confusion by all concerned” … . Where, as here, “the prosecutor, defense counsel and the court all suffered from the same misunderstanding of the [court’s sentencing discretion], it would be unreasonable to conclude that defendant understood it” … . Although the court did not commit to a sentence of parole supervision under CPL 410.91, it erroneously indicated that defendant was eligible for such a sentence and stated that it would consider such a sentence, among all sentencing options, at sentencing—it did not qualify its statement or advise defendant that there was a possibility that he was not eligible for such a sentence … . We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the superior court information. In light of our determination, we do not reach defendant’s remaining contentions. People v Work, 2020 NY Slip Op 00962, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

You might also like
Petitioners Failed to Show the Noise from a Train Affected Them Differently From the Public at Large/Therefore the Petitioners Did Not Have Standing to Raise a Challenge to the Source of the Noise Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act/Purpose of the Standing Requirement in this Context Explained
Attorney’s Charging Lien Based Upon a Judgment for Child Support Arrears Was Proper—Relevant Law Explained
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF TENANTS ALLEGING LANDLORDS’ MISHANDLING OF SECURITY DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SMELL OF PCP PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS CHASTISED FOR FAILURE TO CALL THE COURT’S ATTENTION TO CONTRARY AUTHORITY, UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS THAT THE APPEAL PRESENTED A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY, MISCONDUCT AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST AN ARRESTING OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant Should Have Been Adjudicated a Youthful Offender; Waiver of Appeal Not Valid
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, INCLUDING THE LANDLORD, WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; THE PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE; THE ACTION WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FOURTH DEPT).
WHEN A WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT FROM A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO HIM BY THE POLICE IS DEEMED “CONFIRMATORY,” THAT CONCLUSION IS TANTAMOUNT TO A DETERMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE POLICE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS NOT SUGGESTIVE AND COULD NOT HAVE LED TO THE MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE WITNESS KNEW THE DEFENDANT WELL; HERE THE PROOF THE IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENDANT SAW THE VEHICLE WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY RAN THE STOP SIGN AND THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TOO FAST TO STOP; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN EVASIVE ACTION (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

STATEMENT MADE IN PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION IN THE SAME MATTER TO THE EFFECT... FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S MENTAL CONDITION AFTER...