People v. Hogue
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
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
- People v. CatuNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
- People v. LoureeNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
- People v. SparberNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
- People v. HillNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
- People v. CooksNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- People v. HogueAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009