People v. Catu
| Decision Date | 24 March 2005 |
| Citation | 4 N.Y.3d 242,792 N.Y.S.2d 887,825 N.E.2d 1081 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RANDOLFO CATU, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
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.
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 [1995]
). 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 [1]; see also Senate Mem in Support, 1998 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 1489 []). 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 [2]), 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 [3]). 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,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larweth v. Conway
...Law," which enacted a scheme of determinate sentencing to be followed by periods of mandatory post-release supervision. People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 244; 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081 (N.Y.2005) (citing L.1998, ch. 1 (Jenna's Law)). The Legislature defined each determinate sentence to ......
-
Betances v. Fischer
...a plaintiff's conviction would require reversal and a new plea would have to be entered with PRS. People v. Catu , 4 N.Y.3d 242, 245, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 888-89, 825 N.E.2d 1081 (2005) ; see also Sparber , 10 N.Y.3d at 471-72, 859 N.Y.S.2d at 588-89, 889 N.E.2d 459.7 As framed, the class enco......
-
Vincent v. Yelich
...that determinate terms of imprisonment be followed by periods of mandatory postrelease supervision. People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 244, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 888, 825 N.E.2d 1081 (2005) (“Catu ”). The section of the Act at issue here provided in pertinent part that [e]ach determinate sentence al......
-
Ruffins v. The Dep't Of Corr. Serv.
...(2008) (“PRS represents a significant punishment component that restricts an individual's liberty [.]”); People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081, 1082 (2005) (“[I]mposition of supervision is mandatory and thus has a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on......
-
The development of independent New York constitutional jurisprudence in Chief Judge Kaye's judicial opinions: an empirical study.
...Jacobs 844 N.E.2d 1126 2005 S USNY People v. Rivera 833 N.E.2d 194 2005 D F People v. Caban 833 N.E.2d 213 2005 MP USNY People v. Catu 825 N.E.2d 1081 2005 MP A D'Ambrosio v. Dept of Health 824 N.E.2d 494 2005 MP USNY Bower Assocs. v. Town of Pleasant Valley 814 N.E.2d 410 2004 MP F Bower A......