12 Cited authorities

Padilla v. Kentucky
559 U.S. 356 (2010) Cited 8,611 times 131 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel has a duty under the Sixth Amendment to inform a noncitizen defendant that his plea would make him eligible for deportation
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
People v. Hill
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 8782 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 166 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. Murray
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 5600 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 131 times
In Murray, the Judge informed the defendant that he would “probably” receive youthful offender status and a nine-month sentence if he complied with certain plea conditions set by the court.
People v. Gravino
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4025 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 129 times
Holding that the “fact and length of post-release supervision” are “direct consequences of a plea” to any offense, whereas “SORA registration and the terms and conditions of probation” are not
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. Jean-Baptiste
11 N.Y.3d 539 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 53 times
Holding that Feingold standard applies to cases brought on direct appeal where the defendant has "adequately challenged" the sufficiency of the proof as to his depraved indifference murder conviction
People v. Hill
85 N.Y.2d 256 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 80 times
In People v Hill (85 N.Y.2d 256), we recently held that the knowledge requirement of our decision in People v Ryan should be applied retroactively, where the issue was preserved, in cases pending on direct appeal as of December 16, 1993.
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

The People, Respondent,v.Terrance Monk, Appellant.

12 Cited authorities

Holding that counsel has a duty under the Sixth Amendment to inform a noncitizen defendant that his plea would make him eligible for deportation

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

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 Murray, the Judge informed the defendant that he would “probably” receive youthful offender status and a nine-month sentence if he complied with certain plea conditions set by the court.

Holding that the “fact and length of post-release supervision” are “direct consequences of a plea” to any offense, whereas “SORA registration and the terms and conditions of probation” are not

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.

Holding that Feingold standard applies to cases brought on direct appeal where the defendant has "adequately challenged" the sufficiency of the proof as to his depraved indifference murder conviction

In People v Hill (85 N.Y.2d 256), we recently held that the knowledge requirement of our decision in People v Ryan should be applied retroactively, where the issue was preserved, in cases pending on direct appeal as of December 16, 1993.