You are here: / / PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE...

PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, with a concurring opinion and over a dissenting opinion, determined the 2005 case which invalidated guilty pleas accepted without express notice of the period of postrelase supervision (PRS) (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242) should not be applied retroactively. In both cases before the court, the pre-Catu convictions by guilty plea were challenged to prohibit their consideration as predicate crimes for sentencing in post-Catu offenses. The analysis, which encompasses federal and state constitutional law, is too complex to fairly summarize here:

… [N]either [defendant’s] conviction was obtained in violation of the law as it existed at the time of their respective convictions. Both state and federal law required that a defendant demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known about a mandatory term of his sentence. It was not until our 2005 decision in Catu that a defendant was entitled to automatic vacatur. * * *

Our Catu “automatic vacatur” rule did not constitute ,,, a “watershed rule”… . Catu was not necessary to prevent an impermissibly large risk of an inaccurate conviction, and it is doubtful that the failure of the courts to apprise defendants … of the PRS component resulted in them pleading guilty to crimes that they did not commit. Indeed, when presented with their prior convictions, defendants … acknowledged that they were the individuals mentioned in the predicate felony statements filed by the People, and that they did not wish to challenge any of the allegations contained within their respective statements. People v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op 07106, CtApp 11-1-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTLY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY)/POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTLY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY).CATU, PEOPLE V (PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTLY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY)/GUILTY PLEAS (PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTLY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY)

You might also like
A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT IS NOT AN ‘INTERNET IDENTIFIER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CORRECTION LAW, THEREFORE DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER’S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE IT TO THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IS NOT A CRIME (CT APP).
JUDICIARY LAW 487 CREATES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST AN ATTORNEY FOR DECEIT OR FRAUD ON THE COURT OR ANY PARTY TO A LAWSUIT; HERE THE PROOF OF DECEIT OR FRAUD WAS LACKING (CT APP).
THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE AN ALLEGEDLY BIASED JUROR; THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT A CONSTITUTIONAL INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM; THEREFORE DIRECT APPEAL, AS OPPOSED TO A MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, WAS NOT AVAILABLE (CT APP).
HERE IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO PLACE THE DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, BEFORE THE JURY RETURNED TO ANNOUNCE THE VERDICT; AT THAT POINT THE DEFENDANT IS CONSIDERED INNOCENT AND RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT EXPLANATION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED (CT APP).
ANSWERING A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (CBA’S) DID NOT PROVIDE RETIREES WITH A VESTED RIGHT SUCH THAT THE HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS AWARDED AT RETIREMENT WOULD NOT BE REDUCED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSEQUENT CBA’S (CT APP).
OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION.
THE EMPLOYER’S REQUEST, AT THE HEARING, TO CROSS-EXAMINE CLAIMANT’S PHYSICIAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LANGUAGE IN THE RELEVANT REGULATION IS MANDATORY (THIRD DEPT). ​
FAILURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CONSUMER BRAND PREFERENCE IN EVALUATING A CAR DEALER’S PERFORMANCE VIOLATES THE DEALER ACT; UNILATERAL CHANGE TO THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA USED TO EVALUATE A CAR DEALER’S PERFORMANCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DEALER ACT.

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

EXPANDABLE, METAL BATON IS A “BILLY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL... THE TOLLING PROVISION, WHICH TOLLS THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR...