People v. Nelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nelson

91 A.D.3d 424, 935 N.Y.2d 513

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 3, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.3d 424 (People v. Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Nelson, 91 A.D.3d 424, 935 N.Y.2d 513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[425]*425At the time of the plea, the court advised defendant of the prison sentences he might receive if he violated the terms of his written plea agreement. The court, however, did not reference the imposition of postrelease supervision (PRS) as a component of the alternate sentence. Under People v Catu (4 NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005]), PRS was a direct consequence of the plea notwithstanding that defendant could have earned a misdemeanor disposition had he complied with the agreement (see People v McAlpin, 17 NY3d 936 [2011]). Accordingly, he is entitled to vacatur of his plea as not knowing and voluntary. Moreover, defendant was not required to preserve the instant Catu claim because the court did not inform him of his exposure to PRS until sentence was imposed (see id.).

We find it unnecessary to reach any other issues. Concur— Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Friedman, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

[425]*425At the time of the plea, the court advised defendant of the prison sentences he might receive if he violated the terms of his written plea agreement. The court, however, did not reference the imposition of postrelease supervision (PRS) as a component of the alternate sentence. Under People v Catu (4 NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005]), PRS was a direct consequence of the plea notwithstanding that defendant could have earned a misdemeanor disposition had he complied with the agreement (see People v McAlpin, 17 NY3d 936 [2011]). Accordingly, he is entitled to vacatur of his plea as not knowing and voluntary. Moreover, defendant was not required to preserve the instant Catu claim because the court did not inform him of his exposure to PRS until sentence was imposed (see id.).

We find it unnecessary to reach any other issues. Concur— Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Friedman, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 424, 935 N.Y.2d 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nelson-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack