Case Title: The People v. Andre Stewart

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2011-04-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 47  
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Andre Stewart,
            Appellant.
Alan S. Axelrod, for appellant. 
Susan Axelrod, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
In 2003, when defendant pleaded guilty to attempted
robbery in the first degree, the court advised him that he would
receive a three and one-half year prison term with "maximum
postrelease supervision time."  At sentencing, the court
- 1 -
- 2 -
No. 47
pronounced the determinate sentence along with a five-year term
of postrelease supervision.  Defendant did not object to the
imposition of postrelease supervision at sentencing nor did he
pursue a direct appeal.  However, in 2008, he filed a CPL 440.10
motion seeking vacatur of his plea based on People v Catu (4 NY3d
242 [2005]), contending that his plea was involuntary because the
court failed to advise him of the specific term of postrelease
supervision during the plea proceeding.  Supreme Court denied the
motion, relying on People v Louree (8 NY3d 541 [2007]) for the
proposition that defendant's Catu claim could not be raised in a
CPL 440.10 motion.  The Appellate Division affirmed, as do we.
In Louree, we held that when "a trial judge does not
fulfill the obligation to advise a defendant of postrelease
supervision during the plea allocution, the defendant may
challenge the plea as not knowing, voluntary and intelligent on
direct appeal" because the error is evident from the transcript
of the plea proceeding (id. at 545-546).  Catu claims have
therefore been treated no differently than any other failure to
advise a defendant of a direct consequence of a plea under the
rule articulated in People v Ford (86 NY2d 397 [1995]).  We
further observed in Louree that, since the omission is clear from
the face of the trial record, a Catu claim generally cannot be
raised in a CPL 440.10 motion (Louree, 8 NY3d at 546 n *; see CPL
440.10[2][c]).
  
Defendant's contention that Louree changed the law
- 2 -
- 3 -
No. 47
concerning the types of claims that may be brought in a CPL
440.10 collateral proceeding is without merit.  As far back as
1986, this Court had made clear that "[w]hen, as will usually be
the case, sufficient facts appear on the record to permit the
question to be reviewed, sufficiency of the plea allocution can
be reviewed only by direct appeal" (People v Cooks, 67 NY2d 100,
104 [1986] [emphasis added]; see also, People v Angelakos, 70
NY2d 670 [1987]).  A Catu claim is indistinguishable from a
challenge to the adequacy of the plea allocution and, as we
stated previously, it is reviewable on direct appeal.  In the
absence of justification for a defendant's failure to pursue this
issue in a direct appeal (which is absent here), such a claim may
not be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion.  We are therefore
foreclosed from addressing defendant's argument on the merits.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided April 5, 2011
- 3 -