People v. Jones

• Decision Date: 13 June 2014
• Citation: 118 A.D.3d 1360,988 N.Y.S.2d 316,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04376
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rockie JONES, Jr., Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

118 A.D.3d 1360
988 N.Y.S.2d 316
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04376

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Rockie JONES, Jr., Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

June 13, 2014.

[988 N.Y.S.2d 317]

The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Vincent F. Gugino of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (David A. Heraty of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of one count of aggravated driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2–a][b] ), defendant contends his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered because County Court failed to inform him of a direct consequence of his plea. We agree. We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea and remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings on the superior court information.

Even though defendant was required to preserve his contention for our review through a motion “to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction” ( People v. Dillon, 90 A.D.3d 1468, 1468, 935 N.Y.S.2d 390,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 1025, 953 N.Y.S.2d 558, 978 N.E.2d 110;see People v. Gerald, 103 A.D.3d 1249, 1249, 959 N.Y.S.2d 362), we note that the People do not oppose reversal, and we exercise our power to review this contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[3][c] ).

It is well settled that, in order for a plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, a defendant must be advised of the direct consequences of that plea ( see People v. Harnett, 16 N.Y.3d 200, 205, 920 N.Y.S.2d 246, 945 N.E.2d 439;People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 244, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081). “The direct consequences of a plea—those whose omission from a plea colloquy makes the plea per se invalid—are essentially the core components of a defendant's sentence: a term of probation or imprisonment, a term of postrelease supervision, a fine ” ( Harnett, 16 N.Y.3d at 205, 920 N.Y.S.2d 246, 945 N.E.2d 439 [emphasis added] ). The People concede that defendant was not informed that a fine, i.e., a direct consequence of the plea, would be imposed at any time before sentencing was pronounced and, therefore, reversal is required ( see id.).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed

[988...