You are here: / / WHEN DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN 2002 HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF...
,

WHEN DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN 2002 HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) AND HE DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA IN 2010 WHEN PRS WAS ADDED TO HIS SENTENCE; DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CONTEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 2002 CONVICTION RE: A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER DESIGNATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been allowed to contest the constitutionality of his 2002 conviction because he was not informed of the period of post release supervision (PRS) before he pled guilty. Defendant’s failure to move to withdraw the 2002 plea when he was resentenced in 2010 to add PRS to his sentence did not waive his right to claim prejudice in a challenge to the constitutionality of a predicate felony:

At the persistent violent felony offender proceeding in this case, defendant claimed that he would have gone to trial in the 2002 case had he known that PRS would ultimately be a consequence of his plea … . The sentencing court conducted a hearing on this claim, which included defendant’s testimony. After the hearing, the court expressly declined to rule on this claim of prejudice. Instead, the court ruled that defendant was barred from making such a challenge because he declined an opportunity to withdraw his 2002 plea when he was resentenced in 2010. However, that opportunity, offered when defendant had only weeks left to serve on the 8½ year sentence imposed in 2002, would not have provided a remedy for the constitutional defect that defendant is claiming, which is that he would not have pleaded guilty in 2002 had he known of the ultimate PRS component of his sentence. Accordingly, we find that defendant’s 2010 failure to withdraw the 2002 plea did not waive his right to claim prejudice in the context of a challenge to the constitutionality of a predicate felony, and we remand for a ruling on that claim. People v Graham, 2023 NY Slip Op 01852, First Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Defendant was not informed of the period of post release supervision (PRS) when he pled guilty in 2002 and did not move to withdraw his plea when PRS was added in 2010. Defendant did not waive his right to attack the constitutionality of the 2002 conviction in this persistent felony offender proceeding.

 

You might also like
THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE.
Mother Could Not Maintain a Cause of Action for Emotional Harm Based Upon the Death of Her Baby—Although the Baby Was “Pre-Viable” and Unconscious, the Baby Was Born Alive and the Mother Suffered No Independent Injury
A JUDGE CANNOT ORDER DISCOVERY IN A FOREIGN JURISDICTION WHICH IS A SIGNATORY TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONVENTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHICH OPERATED A STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAM, OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO INJURED STUDENT; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PRESENTED NO AFFIRMATIVE PROOF ON CAUSATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THAT ISSUE NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF.
THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED TO MOTHER ITS AUTHORITY TO SET A VISITATION SCHEDULE FOR FATHER; FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND COUNSELING MAY BE APPROPRIATE WHERE, AS HERE, A CHILD REFUSES VISITATION WITH A PARENT (FIRST DEPT).
DNA Evidence Which Excluded Defendant Was Not Enough to Warrant Vacation of Conviction, or Even a Hearing on the Motion to Vacate
THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY, INFOR, CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT THE TIME OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THEREFORE INFOR WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT (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

BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY IS NOT AN ENUMERATED OFFENSE UNDER SORA,... DEFENDANT’S BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS BASED SOLELY ON A SODA CAN WITH HIS...