From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Catu

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 24, 2005
4 N.Y.3d 242 (N.Y. 2005)

Summary

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

Summary of this case from People v. Warden, George Motchan Detention Ctr.

Opinion

39.

Argued February 15, 2005.

Decided March 24, 2005.

Appeal, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered December 23, 2003. The Appellate Division affirmed (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and (2) an order of that court ( see 193 Misc 2d 623) which had denied defendant's motion to vacate his conviction.

People v. Catu, 2 AD3d 306, reversed.

Kevin J. Keating, Garden City, and Laurie S. Hershey for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City ( Beth Fisch Cohen and Donald J. Siewert of counsel), for respondent.

Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.


OPINION OF THE COURT


Indicted for robbery in the second degree, feloniously operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and related charges, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the second degree and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, as a felony, in exchange for an aggregate determinate sentence of three years in state prison and a $1,000 fine. Because defendant was a second felony offender, his sentence included a mandatory period of five years' postrelease supervision, of which he was not advised by the court. We conclude that this failure to advise defendant of a direct consequence of his conviction requires that his plea be vacated.

While a trial court has no obligation to explain to defendants who plead guilty the possibility that collateral consequences may attach to their criminal convictions, the court must advise a defendant of the direct consequences of the plea ( see People v. Ford, 86 NY2d 397). Collateral consequences "are peculiar to the individual and generally result from the actions taken by agencies the court does not control" ( id. at 403). A direct consequence "is one which has a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on defendant's punishment" ( id.).

Postrelease supervision is a direct consequence of a criminal conviction. In eliminating parole for all violent felony offenders in 1998, the Legislature enacted a scheme of determinate sentencing to be followed by periods of mandatory postrelease supervision ( see L 1998, ch 1 [Jenna's Law]), and defined each determinate sentence to "also include, as a part thereof, an additional period of post-release supervision" (Penal Law § 70.45; see also Senate Mem in Support, 1998 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 1489 [describing postrelease supervision as "a distinct but integral part of the determinate sentence"]). Whereas the term of supervision to be imposed may vary depending on the degree of the crime and the defendant's criminal record ( see Penal Law § 70.45), imposition of supervision is mandatory and thus "has a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on defendant's punishment."

"A trial court has the constitutional duty to ensure that a defendant, before pleading guilty, has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences" ( Ford, 86 NY2d at 402-403 [citations omitted]). Although the court is not required to engage in any particular litany when allocuting the defendant, "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" ( id. at 403 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]).

Postrelease supervision is significant. Upon release from the underlying term of imprisonment, a defendant must be furnished with a written statement setting forth the conditions of postrelease supervision in sufficient detail to provide for the defendant's conduct and supervision ( see Penal Law § 70.45). In addition to supervision by and reporting to a parole officer, postrelease supervision may require compliance with any conditions to which a parolee may be subject ( see id.), including, for example, a curfew, restrictions on travel, and substance abuse testing and treatment. Moreover, postrelease supervision may require up to six months of participation in a residential treatment facility immediately following release from the underlying term of imprisonment ( see id.; Correction Law § 2). A violation of a condition of postrelease supervision can result in reincarceration for at least six months and up to the balance of the remaining supervision period, not to exceed five years ( see Penal Law § 70.45).

Because a defendant pleading guilty to a determinate sentence must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action, the failure of a court to advise of postrelease supervision requires reversal of the conviction. The refusal of the trial court and Appellate Division to vacate defendant's plea on the ground that he did not establish that he would have declined to plead guilty had he known of the postrelease supervision was therefore error ( see also People v. Coles, 62 NY2d 908, 910 ["harmless error rules were designed to review trial verdicts and are difficult to apply to guilty pleas"]).

In light of this result, we do not reach defendant's alternative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

People v. Catu

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 24, 2005
4 N.Y.3d 242 (N.Y. 2005)

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

Summary of this case from People v. Warden, George Motchan Detention Ctr.

requiring trial courts to inform defendants of post-release supervision before a guilty plea

Summary of this case from Petrix Desrosiers v. Phillips

In Catu, in reliance on these due process requirements, the Court stated that the mandatory postrelease supervision (PRS) portion of a sentence is "a direct consequence of a criminal conviction" (4 N.Y.3d at 244, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081).

Summary of this case from People v. Smith

In Catu, we addressed a trial court's failure to advise the defendant of his PRS term in connection with his bargained-for sentence on a guilty plea where the defendant's status as a predicate felony offender mandated that his sentence include a five-year PRS period.

Summary of this case from People v. Smith

In Catu, the trial court did not advise the defendant during the plea colloquy that he was subject to a mandatory period of supervision after his release from prison, a direct consequence of his plea.

Summary of this case from People v. Collier

In Catu, the trial court did not advise the defendant during the plea colloquy that he was subject to a mandatory period of supervision after his release from prison, a direct consequence of his plea.

Summary of this case from People v. Collier

In Catu, we held that a trial court has the constitutional duty to inform a defendant of a mandatory term of PRS before accepting a guilty plea (id. at 245).

Summary of this case from People v. Pignataro

In Catu, we held that a trial court has the constitutional duty to inform a defendant of a mandatory term of PRS before accepting a guilty plea (id. at 245, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081).

Summary of this case from People v. Pignataro

In Catu, defendant pleaded guilty to various crimes and his sentence, by virtue of his status as a second felony offender, was required by statute to include a five-year period of PRS (see Penal Law § 70.45).

Summary of this case from People v. Belliard

In Catu, defendant pleaded guilty to various crimes and his sentence, by virtue of his status as a second felony offender, was required by statute to include a five-year period of PRS (seePenal Law § 70.45).

Summary of this case from People v. Belliard

In Catu we held that postrelease supervision is a direct consequence of a conviction, and therefore a defendant must be advised of the fact and length of postrelease supervision during the plea colloquy in order for a guilty plea to be knowing, voluntary and intelligent.

Summary of this case from People v. Gravino

In Catu we held that postrelease supervision is a direct consequence of a conviction, and therefore a defendant must be advised of the fact and length of postrelease supervision during the plea colloquy in order for a guilty plea to be knowing, voluntary and intelligent.

Summary of this case from People v. Gravino

In Catu, we concluded that postrelease supervision (PRS) was a direct consequence of a conviction which must be disclosed to a defendant in order to render a guilty plea knowing, voluntary and intelligent.

Summary of this case from People v. Gravino

In Catu, we concluded that postrelease supervision was a direct consequence of a conviction which must be disclosed to a defendant in order to render a guilty plea knowing, voluntary and intelligent.

Summary of this case from People v. Gravino

In People v Catu (4 NY3d 242) and People v Van Deusen (7 NY3d 744), specific performance was not a viable option, so this Court had no occasion to address the issue.

Summary of this case from People v. Hill

In Catu, the trial judge's failure to advise the defendant of postrelease supervision was, in fact, raised in a CPL article 440 motion.

Summary of this case from People v. Louree

In People v. Catu (4 NY3d 242), we held that postrelease supervision is a direct consequence of conviction of a violent felony offense for which a determinate sentence is imposed.

Summary of this case from State v. Tammi L. Van Deusen

In Catu, the court held that the defendant's plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was not advised that, in addition to his sentence of three years imprisonment, "his sentence included a mandatory period of five years' postrelease supervision."

Summary of this case from Furlong v. State

In People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081, the Court of Appeals held that postrelease supervision is a direct consequence of certain criminal convictions.

Summary of this case from People v. Divalentino

In People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081, the Court of Appeals held that postrelease supervision is a direct consequence of certain criminal convictions.

Summary of this case from People v. Blunt

In Catu, the lowest determinate sentence authorized for a second felony offender, like Catu, convicted of attempted robbery in the second degree, a class D violent felony offense (Penal Law § 70.02 [c]), is three years (Penal Law § 70.06 [c]).

Summary of this case from People v. Hill

In Catu, the claim that the defendant had not been advised prior to pleading guilty of the requirement of a period of postrelease supervision was raised in the defendant's first submission to the court following sentence, a CPL 440.10 motion (see People v. Catu, 2 AD3d 306).

Summary of this case from People v. Bracey

In Catu (4 NY3d 242, supra), a plea was stricken because the sentencing court failed to advise the defendant that he would be subject to post release supervision.

Summary of this case from PEOPLE v. YU

In Catu, the Court of Appeals held that a defendant not properly advised of the imposition of a period of postrelease supervision at the time the plea was entered was entitled to a vacatur of the plea.

Summary of this case from People v. Singh

In Catu, the Court required that for a plea to meet the standard of being knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, a defendant must be informed at the time of the plea that a period of postrelease supervision constitutes part of his sentence.

Summary of this case from People v. Singh
Case details for

People v. Catu

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RANDOLFO CATU…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 24, 2005

Citations

4 N.Y.3d 242 (N.Y. 2005)
792 N.Y.S.2d 887
825 N.E.2d 1081

Citing Cases

People v. Smith

A substantial number of trial courts mistakenly interpreted the provision to mean that PRS arose as a matter…

People v. Gravino

V Failure to advise defendant of her impending Sex Offender Registration Act registration should result in…