Opinion
2016–06080 Ind. No. 248/14
11-13-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Sharrahn WALTON, Appellant.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, N.Y., for appellant. Kevin P. Gilleece, New City, N.Y. (Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, N.Y., for appellant.
Kevin P. Gilleece, New City, N.Y. (Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (James Hubert, J., at plea; David S. Zuckerman, J., at sentence), rendered May 11, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the plea of guilty is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings.
On November 25, 2014, the County Court placed a proposed plea agreement on the record, which included a promised determinate term of imprisonment ranging from 1 to 3 ½ years in exchange for the defendant's plea of guilty to the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree ( Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). The court informed the defendant that the sentence promise was conditioned upon, inter alia, the defendant not being arrested again prior to the imposition of sentence. Thereafter, the defendant entered a plea of guilty.
At the subsequent sentencing proceeding, the County Court noted that the defendant had been arrested twice for robbery since the entry of his plea of guilty, and had thereby violated the conditions of the plea agreement. The court then imposed an enhanced sentence which included a period of postrelease supervision not previously mentioned at the plea or sentencing proceedings.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant was not required to preserve for appellate review his current claim that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered based on the County Court's failure to mention the postrelease supervision component of his sentence at the plea proceeding, since he had no knowledge of, or opportunity to challenge, that portion of his sentence prior to its imposition (see People v. Turner, 24 N.Y.3d 254, 259, 997 N.Y.S.2d 671, 22 N.E.3d 179 ; People v. Louree, 8 N.Y.3d 541, 546, 838 N.Y.S.2d 18, 869 N.E.2d 18 ; People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 245, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081 ; People v. James, 160 A.D.3d 984, 985, 72 N.Y.S.3d 493 ; People v. Bolivar, 118 A.D.3d 91, 93–94, 986 N.Y.S.2d 631 ).
" ‘[A] trial court has the constitutional duty to ensure that a defendant, before pleading guilty, has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences’ " ( People v. Turner, 24 N.Y.3d at 258, 997 N.Y.S.2d 671, 22 N.E.3d 179, quoting People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d at 244–245, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081 ; see People v. James, 160 A.D.3d at 985, 72 N.Y.S.3d 493 ). "To meet due process requirements, a defendant ‘must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action’ " ( People v. Turner, 24 N.Y.3d at 258, 997 N.Y.S.2d 671, 22 N.E.3d 179, quoting People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d at 245, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081 ), and "[w]ithout such procedures, vacatur of the plea is required" ( People v. Turner, 24 N.Y.3d at 258, 997 N.Y.S.2d 671, 22 N.E.3d 179 ). Here, the record reflects that the defendant was not made aware at the time he entered his plea that the terms of his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision (see People v. James, 160 A.D.3d at 985, 72 N.Y.S.3d 493 ), nor did he have a sufficient opportunity to move to withdraw his plea on that basis before the court imposed sentence (see People v. Turner, 24 N.Y.3d at 259, 997 N.Y.S.2d 671, 22 N.E.3d 179 ; People v. Bolivar, 118 A.D.3d at 93–94, 986 N.Y.S.2d 631 ). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, the plea of guilty vacated, and the matter remitted to the County Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings.
In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant's remaining contentions.
MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.