People v. Bracey
Decision Date | 29 December 2005 |
Docket Number | 6774. |
Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 10209,24 A.D.3d 363,807 N.Y.S.2d 34 |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DARREN BRACEY, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
On April 18, 2002, defendant entered a plea of guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, in full satisfaction of the indictment against him. His attorney stated on the record that the agreed-upon sentence was to be eight years, with a permanent order of protection and defendant's right to appeal waived. Under questioning by the court, defendant confirmed his understanding of the plea agreement as presented and its voluntary nature. No mention of postrelease supervision was made at the plea proceeding, nor was there any allocution of defendant about the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty.
On May 9, 2002, defendant was sentenced to the agreed-upon term of eight years, after which the court stated,
"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" (People v. Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 402-403 [1995]). Although not required to engage in any particular litany in accepting a plea (id. at 403), the court must advise the defendant, inter alia, of the constitutional rights he would be waiving by pleading guilty, and the record must show that the defendant "intelligently and understandingly rejected (these rights)" (People v. Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983], quoting Carnley v. Cochran, 369 US 506, 516 [1962]). The court must also advise the defendant of the "direct" consequences of the plea, i.e., those that have a "definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on defendant's punishment" (Ford, 86 NY2d at 403), and the record must show that the defendant's plea "`represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to (him)'" (Harris, 61 NY2d at 19).
Postrelease supervision being a direct consequence of a criminal conviction, the failure of a court to advise thereof requires reversal of the conviction (People v. Catu, 4 NY3d 242 [2005]). Accordingly, although defendant failed to preserve this issue for appeal, the error here is so fundamental as to require reversal.
The majority's reliance on People v. Catu (4 NY3d 242 [2005]) is misplaced. 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 [2003]). Here, by contrast, although defendant submitted a pro se motion to vacate the plea less than two weeks after he was sentenced, he never raised his current claim that he had not been advised...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Murden v. Artuz
...(3)(c) protects "important finality concerns" and prevents delays that might prejudice the prosecution. People v. Bracey, 24 A.D.3d 363, 807 N.Y.S.2d 34, 36 (App. Div. 2005). Murden's first Section 440 motion filed roughly five years after his conviction and nearly twenty years after the mu......
-
In the Matter of Kendall J.
... ... Daniel's testimony about Sabrina's inconsistent statement and not its admissibility (see e.g. People v. Wise, 46 NY2d 321, 327 [1978] ["In case of doubt, therefore, the balance should be struck in favor of admissibility (of prior statements claimed ... ...