| People v Jones |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04376 [118 AD3d 1360] |
| June 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vRockie Jones, Jr., Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) |
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Vincent F. Gugino of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (David A. Heraty of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.),rendered October 12, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty,of aggravated driving while intoxicated.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed as amatter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law, the plea is vacated, and thematter is remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings on the superior courtinformation.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, ofone count of aggravated driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1192 [2-a] [b]), defendant contends his plea was not knowingly,voluntarily or intelligently entered because County Court failed to inform him of a directconsequence of his plea. We agree. We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the pleaand remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings on the superior courtinformation.
Even though defendant was required to preserve his contention for our reviewthrough a motion "to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction" (People v Dillon, 90 AD3d1468, 1468 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1025 [2012]; see People v Gerald, 103AD3d 1249, 1249 [2013]), we note that the People do not oppose reversal, and weexercise our power to review this contention as a matter of discretion in the interest ofjustice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
It is well settled that, in order for a plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligentlyentered, a defendant must be advised of the direct consequences of that plea (see People v Harnett, 16 NY3d200, 205 [2011]; People vCatu, 4 NY3d 242, 244 [2005]). "The direct consequences of aplea—those whose omission from a plea colloquy makes the plea per seinvalid—are essentially the core components of a defendant's sentence: a term ofprobation or imprisonment, a term of postrelease supervision, a fine"(Harnett, 16 NY3d at 205 [emphasis added]). The People concede that defendantwas not informed that a fine, i.e., a direct consequence of the plea, would be imposed atany time before sentencing was pronounced and, therefore, reversal is required (seeid.). Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Peradotto, Valentino and DeJoseph,JJ.