People v. Madison

• Decision Date: 19 March 2010
• Citation: 71 A.D.3d 1422,897 N.Y.S.2d 363
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ortez MADISON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

897 N.Y.S.2d 363
71 A.D.3d 1422

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Ortez MADISON, Defendant-Appellant.

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

March 19, 2010.

897 N.Y.S.2d 363

Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant.

William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

71 A.D.3d 1422

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [1] ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265. 03

897 N.Y.S.2d 364

[former (2) ] ). We reject the contention of defendant that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered because he was not informed at the time of the plea that his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision. Although County Court failed to advise defendant at the time of the plea that a period of postrelease supervision would be imposed, the record establishes that the court, upon recognizing its omission, brought defendant back to court several hours later and informed him that his sentence would include a five-year period of postrelease supervision. Defense counsel stated at that time that he had already informed defendant that a mandatory period of postrelease supervision would be imposed and defendant, upon questioning by the court, indicated that such information did not affect his willingness to

71 A.D.3d 1423

adhere to the plea agreement. We thus conclude under the circumstances of this case that defendant had the requisite notice that a period of postrelease supervision would be imposed and an opportunity to withdraw his plea ( see People v. Padilla, 50 A.D.3d 928, 929, 856 N.Y.S.2d 202, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 938, 862 N.Y.S.2d 344, 892 N.E.2d 410; cf. People v. Louree, 8 N.Y.3d 541, 838 N.Y.S.2d 18, 869 N.E.2d 18).

Defendant further contends that the plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered because he did not recite the facts underlying the crimes charged. That contention, however, is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). In any event, that contention is without merit inasmuch as "there is no requirement...