17 N.Y.3d 936 (2011)
When a court advises a defendant of the potential consequences of violating a plea agreement, it must accurately describe all possible penalties, including post-release supervision (PRS), to ensure the defendant’s plea is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
Summary
McAlpin pleaded guilty to robbery with the understanding he’d be a youthful offender and receive probation if he met certain conditions. The court warned that violating the agreement could lead to a prison sentence. McAlpin violated the agreement, and the court imposed a prison sentence with post-release supervision (PRS). On appeal, McAlpin argued the court failed to mention PRS when outlining the potential consequences of violating the agreement, thus violating the Catu rule. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal, holding that because the court failed to mention PRS when outlining the possible penalties, McAlpin’s plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
Facts
McAlpin was arrested for forcibly taking an electronic game console from a subway passenger. He was indicted on robbery charges. He pleaded guilty to one count of robbery. The court placed him on interim probation, stating that if he adhered to the probation conditions, he would be treated as a youthful offender and receive probation. The court also stated that if he failed to meet these conditions, he would receive a prison sentence between 3 ½ and 15 years. The court did not mention post-release supervision at the plea proceeding.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court initially accepted McAlpin’s guilty plea with the conditions for youthful offender status. After McAlpin violated the conditions, the Supreme Court imposed a prison sentence with PRS. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s judgment, vacated the plea, and reinstated the indictment, finding a Catu violation. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a court’s failure to mention post-release supervision (PRS) during a plea proceeding when outlining the potential consequences of violating a plea agreement requires reversal and vacatur of the plea.
Holding
Yes, because when a court elects to advise a defendant of the consequences of violating a plea agreement, it must reference all potential penalties, including PRS, to ensure the defendant’s plea is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that because the court referenced only a prison term and omitted the possibility of post-release supervision, McAlpin was given an inaccurate impression of the sentencing options available to the court. The court distinguished this case from People v. Murray (15 N.Y.3d 725 (2010)), where the defendant had ample opportunity to object to the sentence before it was formally imposed. In this case, the court first mentioned PRS moments before imposing the sentence. The court was also unconvinced that a brief remark by the court at sentencing about previously advising McAlpin about PRS conclusively established that McAlpin was properly advised before accepting the plea. The court reasoned, “There is no indication in the record that the court or either counsel had reviewed the plea transcript or had focused specifically on whether, during the plea proceeding, the court had discussed the possibility of postrelease supervision—a potential sentence that was not part of the original agreement.”