The People of the State of New York v. Babacrae Ndiaye
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law issue involving whether a guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent when the trial court failed to advise the defendant that his sentence included postrelease supervision (PRS).
The Supreme Court, New York County accepted defendant's guilty plea to two counts of assault in the first degree and sentenced him to concurrent terms of nine years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision (PRS).
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment of conviction, vacated the guilty plea, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
The plea record did not show that the court itself informed defendant during the plea allocution that his sentence would include postrelease supervision (PRS), making the plea unknowing, involuntary, and unintelligent under People v Hill and People v Catu. The issue was reviewable on direct appeal even without a post-allocution motion under People v Louree and People v Boyd.
Background
Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault in the first degree in Supreme Court, New York County. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of nine years, each followed by five years of postrelease supervision (PRS). On appeal, he argued that his plea was invalid because the court did not advise him during the plea proceeding that PRS was part of the sentence.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court rendered judgment on May 16, 2024, convicting defendant on his guilty plea and imposing concurrent sentences of nine years' imprisonment plus five years of postrelease supervision (PRS).
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously reversed on the law, vacated the plea, and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the plea colloquy was defective because the court never advised defendant that postrelease supervision (PRS) would be part of the sentence. The prosecution's reference to an offer including PRS did not cure the court's omission, and defendant's failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment did not forfeit appellate review.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that a trial court must personally advise a defendant during the plea allocution of any postrelease supervision (PRS) component of the sentence. If the court fails to do so, the plea is not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and the defendant may raise that defect on direct appeal even without first making a post-allocution motion. It also confirms that a prosecutor's mention of PRS is insufficient when the court itself does not provide the advisement.
A guilty plea in New York cannot stand if the judge fails to tell the defendant during the plea proceeding that the sentence includes postrelease supervision (PRS); that defect permits reversal and vacatur of the plea on direct appeal.