31 Cited authorities

Santobello v. New York
404 U.S. 257 (1971) Cited 4,860 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that if petitioner is granted specific performance he "should be resentenced by a different judge"
Ulster County Court v. Allen
442 U.S. 140 (1979) Cited 1,856 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that criminal defendants could not mount a facial challenge to a statute that had been constitutionally applied at their trial
People v. Ford
86 N.Y.2d 397 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 1,246 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Ford, the court held that due process requires that the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.
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
Earley v. Murray
451 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 396 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that DOCS practice unconstitutional
People v. Sparber
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3946 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 355 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that, by imposing PRS terms, DOCS usurped the judicial function as defined by New York law; only the sentencing court has the authority to impose the PRS component of the sentence and must do so at the time of sentencing
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
Garner v. Correctional Servs
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3947 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 248 times
Holding that post-release supervision imposed by anyone other than a judge violates New York state law
People v. Stuart
100 N.Y.2d 412 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 246 times
Paraphrasing N.Y. Penal Law § 120.45
People v. Selikoff
35 N.Y.2d 227 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 526 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding court correctly refused to impose original terms of plea agreement after discovering defendant was actually a principal, not a pawn, in a fraudulent scheme, and holding that defendant's refusal to withdraw his plea did not entitle him to specific performance of original plea agreement
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,124 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

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

31 Cited authorities

Holding that if petitioner is granted specific performance he "should be resentenced by a different judge"

Holding that criminal defendants could not mount a facial challenge to a statute that had been constitutionally applied at their trial

In Ford, the court held that due process requires that the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.

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

Holding that DOCS practice unconstitutional

Holding that, by imposing PRS terms, DOCS usurped the judicial function as defined by New York law; only the sentencing court has the authority to impose the PRS component of the sentence and must do so at the time of sentencing

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

Holding that post-release supervision imposed by anyone other than a judge violates New York state law

Paraphrasing N.Y. Penal Law § 120.45

Finding court correctly refused to impose original terms of plea agreement after discovering defendant was actually a principal, not a pawn, in a fraudulent scheme, and holding that defendant's refusal to withdraw his plea did not entitle him to specific performance of original plea agreement

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"