28 N.Y.3d 191
N.Y.2016Background
- Penal Law § 70.45(1) (1998) made post-release supervision (PRS) a mandatory component of determinate sentences, but many courts failed to pronounce PRS at plea or sentencing.
- In People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242 (2005), this Court held PRS is a direct consequence of a conviction and that failure to advise a defendant of PRS requires automatic vacatur of the plea (no prejudice showing required).
- Smith (plea 2001/conviction 2002): court did not advise of PRS; DOCS later administratively imposed PRS; after a Correction Law § 601‑d resentencing in 2008 Smith accepted a reduced PRS rather than vacating the plea; later used as predicate for a 2012 enhanced sentence; moved under CPL 440.20 to disqualify the 2002 conviction as unconstitutionally obtained.
- Fagan (plea 2000): not advised of PRS; DOCS administratively imposed PRS; resentenced but PRS later vacated under People v Williams; his original determinate sentence without PRS was ultimately reinstated; later used as predicate for an enhanced persistent felony sentence and attacked under CPL 440.20.
- The Appellate Division in both cases held Catu applied retroactively to pre‑Catu convictions and granted relief; this Court granted leave and addressed whether Catu applies retroactively (federal and state retroactivity) so as to disqualify pre‑Catu predicate convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Catu applies retroactively on federal collateral review (Teague) | Plaintiffs: Catu merely applied existing due‑process rule that pleas must be knowing; so it is not a "new rule" and should apply retroactively. | Defendants (People): Catu announced a new rule (automatic vacatur without prejudice requirement) and thus is nonretroactive under Teague. | Court: Catu announced a new rule and is not retroactive under Teague; not a Teague "watershed" exception. |
| Whether Catu applies retroactively under New York state retroactivity (Pepper) | Plaintiffs: State due‑process principles already required advising of PRS; Catu should reach pre‑Catu convictions and render them unlawfully obtained. | Defendants: Pepper factors disfavour retroactivity; widespread reliance and legislative responses counsel against retroactive application. | Court: State retroactivity test (Pepper) disfavors applying Catu retroactively to final pre‑Catu convictions. |
| Whether a final prior conviction that was Catu‑infected is "unconstitutionally obtained" for CPL 400.15(7)(b) predicate‑use | Plaintiffs: A Catu error makes the prior conviction unconstitutional and thus ineligible as a predicate. | Defendants: Because Catu is nonretroactive, and pre‑Catu law required prejudice showing, the prior convictions were lawful when entered and remain countable. | Court: Under Catalanotte principles, validity is judged by law at time of conviction or by retroactivity rules; Catu not retroactive, so defendants’ prior convictions are not "unconstitutionally obtained" under CPL 400.15(7)(b). |
| Whether intervening resentencings, statutory fixes (Penal Law § 70.85), or Williams cure Catu errors and preclude disqualification | Plaintiffs: Legislative remedial schemes and resentencings do not necessarily cure Catu defects for predicate‑use. | Defendants: Section 70.85 and Williams can validate or restore the sentence actually received, mooting Catu challenge; defendants who received relief already got the bargained‑for sentence. | Court/Concurring: Statutory remedy and Williams result can render original convictions lawful; but the principal holding did not rest solely on §70.85—retroactivity governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242 (N.Y. 2005) (held PRS is a direct consequence of conviction and failure to advise requires automatic vacatur of plea)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (new rules of criminal procedure generally do not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- People v Catalanotte, 72 NY2d 641 (N.Y. 1988) (prior‑conviction validity judged by law at time of conviction or by retroactivity principles)
- People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (N.Y. 2010) (Double Jeopardy bars attaching PRS to a completed sentence after release)
- Matter of Garner v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 10 NY3d 358 (N.Y. 2008) (DOCS may not administratively impose PRS; PRS must be pronounced by the court)
- People v Pepper, 53 NY2d 213 (N.Y. 1981) (three‑part test for state retroactivity analysis)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (right to counsel as lodestar for Teague watershed exception)