10 Cited authorities

People v. Catu
4 N.Y.3d 242 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 506 times 7 Legal Analyses
Vacating guilty plea when defendant not told of PRS because PRS is a "definite, immediate and largely automatic" direct consequence of sentence
People v. Louree
8 N.Y.3d 541 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 319 times 5 Legal Analyses
Reversing the Appellate Division for affirming the trial court's decision denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea despite the failure to mention PRS during the allocution
People v. Hill
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 8782 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 165 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Hill, the new sentence consisted of a period of imprisonment less than the determinate sentence originally imposed, followed by a period of PRS that together equaled the incarceratory period of the original sentence (see Hill, 9 N.Y.3d at 192, 849 N.Y.S.2d 13, 879 N.E.2d 152).
People v. Boyd
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3627 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 62 times
In Boyd, the Court extended this exception to cases where a court informs the defendant at his plea that his sentence includes a period of supervised release, without specifying the exact duration.
People v. Cornell
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2078 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 44 times
No. 119 SSM 61. Decided March 24, 2011. APPEAL, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered July 9, 2010. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (John T. Ward, J), which had convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of arson in the second degree, (2) vacated the plea, and (3) remitted the matter to County Court for further proceedings on the
State v. Tammi L. Van Deusen
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5154 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 45 times
In People v Van Deusen (7 NY3d 744, 746 [2006]), we held that a defendant may vacate a plea even when the term imposed at sentencing, including both imprisonment and PRS, amounted to less time than the maximum term contemplated at the plea colloquy.
Pignataro v. Poole
381 F. App'x 46 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 19 times
In Pignataro v. Poole, 381 Fed.Appx. 46, 49 (2d Cir.2010), however, the Second Circuit denied habeas corpus relief to a Defendant who was subject to a Catu error holding that to obtain habeas relief for that violation the Defendant had to demonstrate the error was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonble application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme court of the United States” (emphasis in original).
People v. Williams
82 A.D.3d 1576 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) Cited 14 times
No. KA 09-01489. March 25, 2011. Appeal from a rensentence of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), rendered June 18, 2009. The judgment resentenced defendant pursuant to Penal Law § 70.85. THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KRISTIN M. PREVE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Present: Scudder, P.J., Smith, Lindley, Green and Martoche, JJ. It is hereby ordered that the resentence
People v. Coles
62 N.Y.2d 908 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 38 times
Argued May 4, 1984 Decided June 12, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Theodore G. Barlow, J., Thaddeus E. Owens, J. Claude Castro for appellant. William L. Murphy, District Attorney ( Karen F. McGee and Paul J. Angioletti of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the plea vacated, and the case remitted for further proceedings on the indictment. The Appellate Division should have set
People v. Barry K. Verhow
83 A.D.3d 1528 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
April 29, 2011. Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Wayne County Court (John B. Nesbitt, J.), dated September 29, 2009. The order denied the motion of defendant to vacate a judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL article 440. Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the sentence is set

The People, Respondent,v.Anthony S. Pignataro, Appellant.

10 Cited authorities

Vacating guilty plea when defendant not told of PRS because PRS is a "definite, immediate and largely automatic" direct consequence of sentence

Reversing the Appellate Division for affirming the trial court's decision denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea despite the failure to mention PRS during the allocution

In Hill, the new sentence consisted of a period of imprisonment less than the determinate sentence originally imposed, followed by a period of PRS that together equaled the incarceratory period of the original sentence (see Hill, 9 N.Y.3d at 192, 849 N.Y.S.2d 13, 879 N.E.2d 152).

In Boyd, the Court extended this exception to cases where a court informs the defendant at his plea that his sentence includes a period of supervised release, without specifying the exact duration.

In People v Van Deusen (7 NY3d 744, 746 [2006]), we held that a defendant may vacate a plea even when the term imposed at sentencing, including both imprisonment and PRS, amounted to less time than the maximum term contemplated at the plea colloquy.