Legal Opinion

People v. Cornell

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 24, 2011PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

A trial court has the constitutional duty to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a guilty plea, including any period of postrelease supervision (PRS) that will be imposed as part of the sentence (see People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005]). “Although the court is not required to engage in any particular litany when allocuting the defendant, ‘due process requires that the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. FordNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. People v. CatuNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
  3. People v. LoureeNew York Court of Appeals · 2007

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. People v. WeichowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  2. People v. BolivarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
  3. People v. FuertesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
  4. People v. ColonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  5. People v. CampbellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013

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

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

Powered by the Exa API