People v Tapia-Flores

Annotate this Case
People v Tapia-Flores 2017 NY Slip Op 01389 Decided on February 22, 2017 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 22, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
L. PRISCILLA HALL
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2013-10355
(Ind. No. 12-00488)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Marcos Tapia-Flores, also known as Marcos Tapia, appellant.



Michele Marte-Indzonka, Newburgh, NY, for appellant.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (Andrew R. Kass of counsel; Natalie Rios on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered March 14, 2013, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the plea is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

As the People correctly concede, the County Court's failure to advise the defendant at the time of his plea that his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision prevented his plea from being knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245; see also People v Cornell, 16 NY3d 801, 802; People v Hill, 9 NY3d 189, 191). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, the plea vacated, and the matter remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for further proceedings.

The defendant's remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination.

MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.