4 N.Y.3d 242 (2005)

A trial court’s failure to advise a defendant during a guilty plea allocution that a determinate sentence includes a mandatory period of post-release supervision requires reversal of the conviction, as such supervision is a direct consequence of the plea.

Summary

Defendant Catu pleaded guilty to attempted robbery and operating a vehicle under the influence, receiving a determinate sentence. The sentencing court failed to inform Catu that his sentence included a mandatory five-year period of post-release supervision. The New York Court of Appeals held that this omission was a reversible error because post-release supervision is a direct consequence of a guilty plea to a determinate sentence. A defendant must be fully aware of all direct consequences to make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea.

Facts

Catu was indicted on charges of robbery, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and related offenses. He pleaded guilty to attempted robbery and felony DWI in exchange for a determinate sentence of three years in prison and a $1,000 fine. As a second felony offender, Catu’s sentence included a mandatory five-year period of post-release supervision. The sentencing court did not advise Catu of this post-release supervision requirement during his plea allocution.

Procedural History

After sentencing, Catu appealed, arguing that the court’s failure to advise him of the post-release supervision required vacatur of his plea. The trial court and the Appellate Division refused to vacate the plea, arguing that Catu hadn’t demonstrated that he would have rejected the plea deal if he had known about the post-release supervision. The New York Court of Appeals then granted review.

Issue(s)

Whether a trial court’s failure to advise a defendant during a guilty plea allocution that a determinate sentence includes a mandatory period of post-release supervision requires reversal of the conviction.

Holding

Yes, because a defendant pleading guilty to a determinate sentence must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action; therefore, the failure of a court to advise of postrelease supervision requires reversal of the conviction.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals distinguished between direct and collateral consequences of a guilty plea. It stated that while a court need not advise a defendant of collateral consequences, it must advise of direct consequences. Citing People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397 (1995), the court defined a direct consequence as one with a “definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on defendant’s punishment.” The court reasoned that post-release supervision, mandated by “Jenna’s Law,” is an integral part of a determinate sentence and therefore a direct consequence. The court emphasized that post-release supervision is significant, imposing conditions and potential re-incarceration for violations. Because a defendant must understand the plea’s consequences to make a voluntary and intelligent choice, the court held the failure to advise Catu of post-release supervision warranted reversal. The court explicitly rejected the lower courts’ requirement that Catu prove he would have rejected the plea had he known of the supervision, noting that “harmless error rules were designed to review trial verdicts and are difficult to apply to guilty pleas”. As the Court stated, “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”.