Opinion
No. KA 07-01087.
November 14, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Peter L. Broderick, Sr., J.), rendered November 14, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.
DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (HANNAH STITH LONG OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Before: Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated, indictment Nos. 2006-205 and 2006-340 are reinstated and the matter is remitted to Niagara County Court for further proceedings on indictment Nos. 2006-90, 2006-205 and 2006-340.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18). Defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly entered because he was not advised of the mandatory period of postrelease supervision at the time of the plea and thus that vacatur of the plea is required. We agree ( see People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541, 544-546; People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245). "[A] defendant pleading guilty to a determinate sentence must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action, [and] the failure of a court to advise of postrelease supervision requires reversal of the conviction" ( People v Rivera, 51 AD3d 1267, 1268, quoting Catu, 4 NY3d at 245). In light of our determination, we need not address defendant's remaining contentions.