Legal Opinion

People v. Hogue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 23, 2008PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*391Although defendant’s conviction required the imposition of a term of postrelease supervision (PRS), the court did not mention PRS during the plea allocution (see People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242 [2005]), and failed to impose any term of PRS at sentencing, either orally or otherwise (see People v Sparber, 10 NY3d 457 [2008]). However, defendant did not raise any issue relating to PRS on his direct appeal to this Court. Defendant was not entitled to raise, by way of a CPL 440.10 motion, a claim that the lack of a warning that his sentence would include PRS rendered the plea involuntary under Catu,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. People v. CatuNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
  2. People v. LoureeNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. People v. SparberNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
  4. People v. HillNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. People v. CooksNew York Court of Appeals · 1986

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. HogueAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API