Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a trial court must advise a defendant pleading guilty of the postrelease supervision component of a determinate sentence, but need not explain the consequences of violating postrelease supervision. Those consequences are collateral because they are uncertain and are determined by the Board of Parole rather than the sentencing court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a trial court accepting a guilty plea must advise the defendant that violating the conditions of postrelease supervision may result in additional incarceration.
- Whether the consequences of violating postrelease supervision are direct consequences of a guilty plea or collateral consequences that need not be explained during the plea allocution.
Holdings
- A trial court must advise a defendant of the postrelease-supervision component of a determinate sentence, but it need not explain the possible ramifications of violating the conditions of postrelease supervision.
Key quotations
“while a trial court must advise a defendant of the postrelease supervision component of a determinate sentence prior to the acceptance of a guilty plea, it need not allocute on the ramifications of violating the conditions of postrelease supervision” (21 N.Y.3d at 32)
“In sum, the ramifications of a defendant’s violation of the conditions of postrelease supervision are classic collateral consequences of a criminal conviction” (21 N.Y.3d at 33)
Factual background
Monk was charged in Westchester County with robbery and assault after allegedly attacking a woman in her driveway, breaking her car window, injuring her, threatening her, and taking her property. During plea negotiations, the prosecutor obtained a commitment from the Rockland County District Attorney not to oppose concurrent sentencing, and Monk pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree robbery in exchange for a ten-year determinate sentence and five years of postrelease supervision. The Rockland County negotiations later failed, and Monk received a separate seventeen-year sentence after being convicted at trial there. Monk sought to withdraw his Westchester County plea because the court had not explained the possible consequences of violating postrelease-supervision conditions.
Procedural history
Monk pleaded guilty in Westchester County to attempted first-degree robbery pursuant to a promised ten-year determinate sentence with five years of postrelease supervision. He later moved to withdraw the plea, arguing that the court had failed to explain that violating postrelease-supervision conditions could result in additional incarceration. County Court denied the motion, and the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division.