49 Cited authorities

Padilla v. Kentucky
559 U.S. 356 (2010) Cited 8,603 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
Teague v. Lane
489 U.S. 288 (1989) Cited 7,700 times 99 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule announced in Taylor v. Louisiana requiring the jury venire be drawn from a fair cross section of the community is procedural and does not apply retroactively
United States v. Wade
388 U.S. 218 (1967) Cited 8,065 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated
Mapp v. Ohio
367 U.S. 643 (1961) Cited 8,289 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment applies to the States, and overruling the contrary rule of Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, after considering and rejecting "the current validity of the factual grounds upon which Wolf was based"
Desist v. United States
394 U.S. 244 (1969) Cited 829 times
Holding Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 non-retroactive
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. 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. Huntley
15 N.Y.2d 72 (N.Y. 1965) Cited 1,461 times 2 Legal Analyses
Adopting a procedure for providing a separate hearing about the voluntariness of a confession to be offered in evidence against a defendant at his or her trial
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. Williams
14 N.Y.3d 198 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 257 times
Holding that “after release from prison, a legitimate expectation in the finality of a sentence arises and the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents reformation to attach a PRS component to the original completed sentence”

The People, Appellant,v.Keith Fagan, Respondent.

49 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

Holding that the rule announced in Taylor v. Louisiana requiring the jury venire be drawn from a fair cross section of the community is procedural and does not apply retroactively

Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated

Holding that the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment applies to the States, and overruling the contrary rule of Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, after considering and rejecting "the current validity of the factual grounds upon which Wolf was based"

Holding Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 non-retroactive

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

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

Adopting a procedure for providing a separate hearing about the voluntariness of a confession to be offered in evidence against a defendant at his or her trial

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 “after release from prison, a legitimate expectation in the finality of a sentence arises and the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents reformation to attach a PRS component to the original completed sentence”