Title: The People v. Barak Cornell

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 119  SSM 61
The People &c.,
            Appellant,
        v.
Barak Cornell,
            Respondent.
Submitted by Lynn S. Schaffer, for appellant. 
Submitted by Timothy P. Murphy, for respondent.
   
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
A trial court has the constitutional duty to advise a
defendant of the direct consequences of a guilty plea, including
any period of postrelease supervision (PRS) that will be imposed
as part of the sentence (see People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244-245
[2005] [citation omitted]).  "Although the court is not required
- 1 -
- 2 - 
No. 61
to engage in any particular litany when allocuting the defendant,
'due process requires that the record must be clear that the plea
represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the
alternative courses of action open to the defendant'" (id. at
245, quoting People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 403 [citations and
internal quotation marks omitted]).  "[T]he failure of a court to
advise of postrelease supervision requires reversal of the
conviction" (id. at 245).  Further, "where 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, notwithstanding the absence of a postallocution
motion" (People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]).
Here, the record does not make clear, as required by
Catu, that at the time defendant took his plea, he was aware that
the terms of the court's promised sentence included a period of
PRS.  Accordingly, the Appellate Division correctly determined
that defendant's conviction must be reversed and that his guilty
plea be vacated even in the absence of a postallocution motion.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,
order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided March 24, 2011
- 2 -