| People v Fox |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03752 [139 AD3d 871] |
| May 11, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Fox, Appellant. |
Thomas Theophilos, Buffalo, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan and W. ThomasHughes of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County(Gulotta, Jr., J.), both rendered April 24, 2012, convicting him of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substancein the seventh degree under Superior Court information No. 770/09 (Massell, J., at plea),and robbery in the third degree (three counts) under indictment No. 1963/10 (Gulotta, Jr.,J., at plea), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgment rendered April 24, 2012, under Superior Courtinformation No. 770/09 is reversed, on the law, the plea is vacated, and the matter isremitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings in accordanceherewith; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment rendered April 24, 2012, under indictment No. 1963/10 isaffirmed.
As the People correctly concede, the County Court's failure to advise the defendant atthe time of his plea that his sentence for criminal sale of a controlled substance in thethird degree would include a period of postrelease supervision prevented his plea frombeing knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]; see also People v Cornell, 16NY3d 801, 802 [2011]; People v Hill, 9 NY3d 189, 191 [2007]). Accordingly, thejudgment rendered under Superior Court information No. 770/09 must be reversed, theplea vacated, and the matter remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for furtherproceedings (see People vMurrell, 135 AD3d 882 [2016]; People v Wolfolk, 134 AD3d 1059 [2015]; People v Fuertes, 105 AD3d974 [2013]; People vWilcox, 70 AD3d 1059 [2010]).
The defendant's remaining contentions regarding the robbery convictions underindictment No. 1963/10 are without merit, and those regarding the controlled substanceconvictions under Superior Court information No. 770/09 need not be reached in light ofour determination. Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.