From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Craig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 27, 2008
51 A.D.3d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2453.

May 27, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), entered or about July 10, 2006, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his judgment of conviction, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of remanding the matter for resentencing, which shall include the proper pronouncement of the relevant term of postrelease supervision and, except as so modified, affirmed.

Tyrone Craig, appellant pro se.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Sheila O'Shea of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.


Defendant was convicted, on his guilty plea, of attempted kidnapping in the first degree, a class B violent felony, and sentenced to a term of 10 years, the minimum sentence prescribed by law for a second violent felony offender (Penal Law § 70.04 [a]). On this motion, defendant asserts that the court failed to advise him, either at plea or at sentence, that the term of incarceration would be followed by a five-year period of postrelease supervision, as mandated by statute (Penal Law § 70.45, [2]). He contends that such sentence does not comport with the 10-year term he was promised in exchange for his guilty plea ( see People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245). However, defendant does not seek to vacate his plea but requests modification of his sentence to a five-year prison term followed by the mandated five-year period of postrelease supervision.

It is settled that a defendant's remedy for a Catu violation is withdrawal of the plea and restoration of the defendant's pre-agreement status ( People v Hill, 9 NY3d 189, 191, cert denied 553 US ___, 128 S Ct 2430). Where the defendant does not seek to vacate his plea and the sentence imposed is not in compliance with statutory requirements, the matter must be remanded for pronouncement of a legal sentence to correct the procedural error ( People v Sparber, 10 NY3d 457).


Summaries of

People v. Craig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 27, 2008
51 A.D.3d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

People v. Craig

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TYRONE CRAIG, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 27, 2008

Citations

51 A.D.3d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 4740
857 N.Y.S.2d 570

Citing Cases

Nazario v. State of New York

Simultaneously with the enactment of Correction Law § 601-d, the Legislature enacted Penal Law § 70.85, which…

Frederick v. State of New York

In Matter of Dreher v Goord ( 46 AD3d 1261 [3d Dept 2007]), decided shortly before Sparber, the Appellate…