People v Lipscombe
2008 NY Slip Op 02618 [49 AD3d 781]
March 18, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 14, 2008


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
JairLipscombe, Appellant.

[*1] Cheryl Charles-Duval, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J.Dennehy of counsel; Robert Ho on the brief), for respondent.

Motion by the assigned counsel for the appellant on an appeal from a judgment of theSupreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 21, 2006, which was determined by decision andorder of this Court dated October 23, 2007, for leave to withdraw her application for leave towithdraw as counsel, and thereupon, for reargument of the appeal.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted and the application by assigned counsel is deemedwithdrawn, and upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court dated October 23, 2007(see People v Lipscombe, 44 AD3d967 [2007]), is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order is substitutedtherefor:

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice,J.), rendered March 21, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the plea is vacated, and the matter isremitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

At the plea proceeding, the defendant was not advised that he would be subject to a period ofpost-release supervision as part of an enhanced sentence if he failed to comply with theconditions [*2]of his plea. After the defendant failed to appear onthe scheduled sentencing date, the Supreme Court imposed the maximum sentence plus threeyears' post-release supervision. As the People correctly concede, the failure to advise thedefendant of post-release supervision at the time of his plea requires reversal of his conviction(see People v Louree, 8 NY3d541 [2007]; People v Pagan, 43AD3d 1086 [2007]). Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.