AD2 order dated March 15, 2011, affirming judgment of conviction. Decision below: 83 AD3d 35, 920 NYS2d 97. Read, J., granted leave August 5, 2011.

ISSUE PRESENTED: Whether, for a guilty plea to be knowing and voluntary, the plea-taking court must advise the defendant not only of the period of PRS, but also the ramifications of violating PRS.

Issue before the Court: Whether a court needs to advise a defendant of the consequences of violating post-release supervision.

Held: No.  The ramifications of a defendant's violation of the conditions of PRS are classic collateral consequences of a criminal conviction insofar as they are "peculiar" to the defendant and are the product of actions taken by agencies the court doesn't control.  As such, there is no requirement for the court to advise the defendant of them.

CAL Observes: The Court continues its adherence to the "direct/collateral" framework set forth in Ford and seen most recently in Belliard for analyzing the necessity for judicial advisals.  Notable is Judge Rivera's thoughtful dissent in which she drills past semantical distinctions to the reality that we have a plea-based criminal justice system where the extent of imprisonment is "of singular importance" to a defendant's understanding of the plea. Open questions concern the application of this framework to the judicial advisal cases coming before the Court in the immigration context, as well as the vitality of IAC claims where judicial advisal claims fail.