Opinion

People v. Louree

  • 8 N.Y.3d 541
  • 869 N.E.2d 18
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Filed
Jun 5, 2007
Status
Published
Author
Pigott
On the bench
Pigott, Read
Cited by
292 cases
Authority
More cited than 26.7%

Distinguished

  • Distinguished by People v. Perez, 2024 NY Slip Op 04621 (2024)

    Under the present circumstances, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Louree (8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]), is inapplicable because defendant was placed on notice at the plea proceeding that the sentence he would receive upon violating the terms of the plea agreement would include a period of postrelease supervision and therefore had "actual or practical ability" (People v Melende…
    Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkSep 26, 2024Read it
  • Distinguished by People v. Laroche, 142 A.D.3d 872 (2016)

    (8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]) is inapplicable.
    Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkSep 27, 2016Read it
  • Distinguished by People v. Medina, 129 A.D.3d 1385 (2015)

    (8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]) is inapplicable
    Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkJun 25, 2015Read it
  • Distinguished by People v. Reilly, 46 A.D.3d 1108 (2007)

    Further, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable because the plea colloquy does not cast doubt upon or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-667 [1988]; cf. People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]).
    Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkDec 20, 2007Read it

The opinion

Pigott, J.

(dissenting). Because I believe that defendant was required to preserve the issue for appellate review, I respectfully dissent. The record reveals that defendant was made aware of the postrelease component of his sentence at the sentencing proceeding (see generally People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]). Thus, defendant was required to preserve the issue as nothing in this case calls for the “rare case” exception to the preservation doctrine described in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). Here, defendant could have raised an objection to the sentencing judge and he would have then been able to raise the issue on his direct appeal (see People v Fulton, 30 AD3d 961 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 789 [2006]).

Accordingly, I dissent and would affirm the order of the Appellate Division.

*547 Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Gbaffeo and Jones concur with Judge Read; Judge Pigott dissents and votes to affirm in a separate opinion in which Judge Smith concurs.

Order reversed, etc.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.