The People v. Barak Cornell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
================================================================= This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------No. 119 SSM 61 The People &c., Appellant, v. Barak Cornell, Respondent. Submitted by Lynn S. Schaffer, for appellant. Submitted by Timothy P. Murphy, for respondent. 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] [citation omitted]). "Although the court is not required - 1 - - 2 - No. 61 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 open to the defendant'" (id. at 245, quoting People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 403 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). "[T]he failure of a court to advise of postrelease supervision requires reversal of the conviction" (id. at 245). Further, "where a trial judge does not fulfill the obligation to advise a defendant of postrelease supervision during the plea allocution, the defendant may challenge the plea as not knowing, voluntary and intelligent on direct appeal, notwithstanding the absence of a postallocution motion" (People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]). Here, the record does not make clear, as required by Catu, that at the time defendant took his plea, he was aware that the terms of the court's promised sentence included a period of PRS. Accordingly, the Appellate Division correctly determined that defendant's conviction must be reversed and that his guilty plea be vacated even in the absence of a postallocution motion. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur. Decided March 24, 2011 - 2 -
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.
