You are here: / / THE FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA THAT HIS SENTENCE...
, ,

THE FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA THAT HIS SENTENCE WOULD INCLUDE A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVSION REQUIRED VACATION OF THE PLEA; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR WAS NOT NECESSARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant should have been informed that postrelease supervision (PRS) would be part of his sentence. Under the circumstances preservation of the error for appeal was not necessary:

Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant entered his plea in exchange for a promise of youthful offender adjudication and a sentence of probation. Following the entry of the plea, the court informed defendant that, if he violated the terms of the plea agreement, the court would “not keep the promise [it] made regarding [his] sentence” and that it could “impose a much more significant or higher sentence.” The court did not specify what that higher sentence could entail, nor did it mention the possibility of postrelease supervision (PRS).

Prior to sentencing, defendant violated the terms of the plea agreement when he failed to cooperate with the probation department and was arrested on new felony charges. The court held a hearing pursuant to People v Outley (80 NY2d 702 [1993]) and determined that there was a valid basis on which to enhance the sentence. The prosecutor then requested that the court sentence defendant as an adult and impose a sentence of 15 years of incarceration with five years of PRS. The court imposed a determinate sentence of 7½ years of incarceration plus five years of PRS.

The court was required “to advise defendant that his enhanced sentence would include PRS, and was also required to specify the length of the term of PRS to be imposed” … . Although defendant did not object to the imposition of PRS or move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, this case falls under an exception to the preservation rule inasmuch as “[t]he prosecutor’s mention of PRS immediately before sentencing was not the type of notice under People v Murray (15 NY3d 725 [2010]) that would require defendant to preserve the issue” … . People v Stanley, 2021 NY Slip Op 00924, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

You might also like
Frisk Not Justified Under DeBour Analysis
THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED WITH REVIEWING AN X-RAY OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CHEST ON BEHALF OF DECEDENT’S EMPLOYER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INFORM THE DECEDENT OR HIS PHYSICIAN OF THE CANCER FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO) OBTAINED BY STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT MUST BE ENFORCED AS WRITTEN, BECAUSE NO PROVISION WAS MADE FOR GAINS OR LOSSES AFTER THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TRANSFERRED THE AGREED AMOUNT PLUS THE GAINS THAT HAD ACCRUED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT SAID “HE DIDN’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT …” AND THE POLICE STOPPED QUESTIONING HIM; AN HOUR AN A HALF LATER THE POLICE RESUMED QUESTIONING WITHOUT RE-READING THE MIRANDA RIGHTS; THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL DEEMED DE MINIMUS AND NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), PIPE WHICH FELL WAS ONE FOOT ABOVE PLAINTIFF’S HEAD AND WITHIN HIS REACH.
WHEN DEFENDANT BECAME DISRUPTIVE JUST BEFORE THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE BROUGHT IN THE JUDGE HAD HIM REMOVED FROM THE COURTROOM WITHOUT FIRST WARNING HIM AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PRIVATE CITIZEN WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT FOR THE POLICE WHEN SHE RECORDED DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION TO MURDER, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A 710.30 NOTICE BECAUSE THE STATEMENT WAS VOLUNTARILY MADE AND NOT SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION, TWO -JUSTICE DISSENT (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

WHERE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IS A BUSINESS ENTITY, HERE BLOOMBERG L.P.,... SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA IS NOT “DANGEROUS CONTRABAND” WITHIN THE MEANING...