People v. Lipscombe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lipscombe

49 A.D.3d 781, 854 N.Y.2d 452

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 2008·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[782]*782At the plea proceeding, the defendant was not advised that he would be subject to a period of post-release supervision as part of an enhanced sentence if he failed to comply with the conditions of his plea. After the defendant failed to appear on the scheduled sentencing date, the Supreme Court imposed the maximum sentence plus three years’ post-release supervision. As the People correctly concede, the failure to advise the defendant of post-release supervision at the time of his plea requires reversal of his conviction (see People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541 [2007]; People v Pagan, 43 AD3d 1086 [2007]). Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[782]*782At the plea proceeding, the defendant was not advised that he would be subject to a period of post-release supervision as part of an enhanced sentence if he failed to comply with the conditions of his plea. After the defendant failed to appear on the scheduled sentencing date, the Supreme Court imposed the maximum sentence plus three years’ post-release supervision. As the People correctly concede, the failure to advise the defendant of post-release supervision at the time of his plea requires reversal of his conviction (see People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541 [2007]; People v Pagan, 43 AD3d 1086 [2007]). Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

People v. Lipscombe, 49 A.D.3d 781, 854 N.Y.2d 452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 781 (People v. Lipscombe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related