From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 29, 2004
6 A.D.3d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

13648.

Decided and Entered: April 29, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County (Argetsinger, J.), rendered November 15, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts).

Michael P. Graven, Owego, for appellant.

Joseph G. Fazzary, District Attorney, Watkins Glen, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


On October 25, 2001, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree as charged in a three-count indictment. The sentence to be imposed as part of the plea agreement was 3½ years in prison on each count, to run concurrently. At sentencing on November 15, 2001, County Court imposed the agreed-upon sentence instead of the five-year prison term recommended by the District Attorney. The court, however, made no mention of the fact that defendant would be required to serve a period of postrelease supervision pursuant to Penal Law § 70.45. Defendant now appeals.

This Court held in People v. Goss ( 286 A.D.2d 180) that a defendant who is not advised that incarceration will be followed by a mandatory period of postrelease supervision must be allowed to withdraw his or her plea because such condition is a "direct consequence" of the plea. Inasmuch as defendant was not so advised in the case at bar, the same relief should be afforded to him (see People v. Loudenslager, 2 A.D.3d 1220, 1221; People v. Baker, 301 A.D.2d 868, 869,lv dismissed 99 N.Y.2d 625; People v. Jachimowicz, 292 A.D.2d 688, 688). Notably, both the plea and sentencing proceedings occurred prior to this Court's decision in People v. Goss (supra). Therefore, notwithstanding defendant's failure to make an appropriate motion, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction and reverse the judgment of conviction (see People v. Loudenslager, supra at 1221; People v. Hazen, 308 A.D.2d 637, 638).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, plea vacated and matter remitted to the County Court of Schuyler County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.


Summaries of

People v. Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 29, 2004
6 A.D.3d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Hamilton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL L. HAMILTON…

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

Date published: Apr 29, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 605

Citing Cases

People v. Bundy

Defendant's primary contention is that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea because he was not…

Mickens v. State of N.Y

Garner was immediately appealed and reversed by the Court of Appeals ( see also Matter of Deal v Goord, 8…