| People v Watkins |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04258 [140 AD3d 1206] |
| June 2, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vFrancis S. Watkins, Appellant. |
Marcy I. Flores, Warrensburg, for appellant.
J. Anthony Jordon, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Jason Weinstein, New YorkProsecutors Training Institute, Inc., Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
McCarthy, J.P. Appeal from judgment of the County Court of Washington County(McKeighan, J.), rendered March 14, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crimes of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourthdegree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with burglary in the seconddegree and grand larceny in the fourth degree. During the plea proceedings, CountyCourt explained to defendant that, under the terms of the plea agreement, he would besentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of between 6 and 10 years on hisconviction of burglary in the second degree. The court further advised him that, if itdecided to sentence him to more than 10 years after reviewing the presentenceinvestigation report, he would be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. The court,however, failed to discuss the plea's terms in relationship to postrelease supervision to beimposed on the burglary conviction or the sentence to be imposed on his conviction ofgrand larceny in the fourth degree. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to prisonterms of seven years on the burglary conviction, to be followed by three years ofpostrelease supervision, and 1
We agree with defendant that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligentgiven that County Court failed to set forth the terms of the plea agreement beforeaccepting defendant's plea. Because defendant could not be expected to move towithdraw his plea based on terms of [*2]which he had noknowledge, he was not required to make such a motion in order to preserve these claims(see People v Peque, 22NY3d 168, 182 [2013], cert denied 574 US &mdash, 135 S Ct 90[2014]).[FN*]Assuming for the sake of argument that preservation was required, we would nonethelesstake corrective action in the interest of justice. Given that County Court failed to informdefendant of the direct consequences of his conviction as to a particular crime and as toany postrelease supervision, defendant's plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent(see People v Catu, 4 NY3d242, 244-245 [2005]; People v Vences, 125 AD3d 1050, 1050-1052 [2015]).Accordingly, we reverse and remit for further proceedings in accordance with thisdecision. This determination renders defendant's remaining contentions academic.
Garry, Egan Jr., Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isreversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Washington County forfurther proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.
Footnote *:We reject the People'scontention that preservation was required as to the postrelease supervision issue becauseCounty Court, immediately before imposing sentence, mentioned a maximum of between"two-and-a-half and five post" in describing the plea. This latedescription—legalistic shorthand that did not even include the term"supervision"—is readily distinguishable from the type of "ample opportunity" tocontest the imposition of postrelease supervision that gives rise to a preservationrequirement (People vCrowder, 24 NY3d 1134, 1136 [2015]).