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
A LOCAL ONLINE NEWS OUTLET SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM A FAMILY COURT HEARING REGARDING WHETHER A DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM A NEGLECT PROCEEDING ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS; THE OUTLET IS ENTITLED TO A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Property Should Not Have Been Restored to Petitioner—Time for Redemption Had Passed—Default Judgment in Tax Foreclosure Action Extinguished Petitioner’s Rights in the Property
Skiers Do Not Assume the Risk of Recklessness on the Part of Another Skier
THE JUDGE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING THE MANDATORY “SEARCHING INQUIRY;” NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ‘INDICATED’ CHILD MALTREATMENT REPORT, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND REPORT AMENDED TO ‘UNFOUNDED’ AND SEALED (FOURTH DEPT).
ATTEMPTED ASSAULT SECOND DEGREE IS A LESSER INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE; THE TWO COUNTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD IN DOG-BITE CASES APPLIES HERE WHERE THE DOG WAS HARBORED BY THE DEFENDANT UNTIL THE ANIMAL SOCIETY COULD FIND SOMEONE TO ADOPT HIM; THE NEGLIGENCE STANDARD WHICH APPLIES TO A DOG-BITE IN A VETERINARIAN’S WAITING ROOM (WHERE THE VETERINARIAN IS THE DEFENDANT) IS NOT APPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER, WHO HAD WORKED FOR THE TOWN FOR 32 YEARS, TOOK $181 FROM PETTY CASH AND LEFT A NOTE INDICATING SHE OWED MONEY TO THE FUND; THE LARCENY AND THEFT CHARGES WERE ANNULLED; TERMINATION WAS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT; MATTER REMITTED (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...