Opinion
269 KA 07-00713
03-20-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jarvis LASSALLE, Defendant–Appellant.
Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood (Lyle T. Hajdu of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Jarvis Lassalle, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Donna A. Milling of Counsel), for Respondent.
Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood (Lyle T. Hajdu of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Jarvis Lassalle, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Donna A. Milling of Counsel), for Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Defendant was convicted upon a plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4] ). On a prior appeal, we affirmed the judgment of conviction (People v.
Lassalle, 55 A.D.3d 1286, 864 N.Y.S.2d 354, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 926, 874 N.Y.S.2d 12, 902 N.E.2d 446 ), but we subsequently granted defendant's second motion for a writ of error coram nobis (People v. Lassalle, 114 A.D.3d 1226, 979 N.Y.S.2d 917 ). Upon reviewing the appeal de novo, we agree with defendant that the judgment of conviction must be reversed and his plea vacated “because County Court failed to advise [him] prior to his entry of the plea[ ] that his sentence[ ] would include [a] period[ ] of postrelease supervision” (People v. Burns, 70 A.D.3d 1301, 1302, 894 N.Y.S.2d 304, citing People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 245, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081 ).
Contrary to the contention of the People, the mere fact that the court informed defendant that a period of postrelease supervision could have been imposed as part of a maximum sentence does not establish that defendant “was aware that the terms of the court's promised sentence included a period of [postrelease supervision]” (People v. Cornell, 16 N.Y.3d 801, 802, 921 N.Y.S.2d 641, 946 N.E.2d 740 ). Moreover, as we noted in the codefendant's appeal, we may address the merits of defendant's contention notwithstanding a valid waiver of the right to appeal or the absence of a postallocution motion (see Burns, 70 A.D.3d at 1302, 894 N.Y.S.2d 304 ).
In view of our decision, we do not address defendant's remaining contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings on the indictment.SCUDDER, P.J., LINDLEY, VALENTINO, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.