• People v. Becker
    • 9 Misc.3d 720 (Crim. Ct. Queens Co. 2005). A defendant who has been incorrectly advised regarding a collateral consequence, (i.e., defendant’s potential eviction and the potential loss of ownership interest in shares of stock in a cooperative apartment) cannot make “a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to [him]” when entering his guilty plea. Accordingly, the court finds that defendant’s allegations… would be sufficient to warrant vacatur of his conviction pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ยง 440.10 (1) (h), on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.
  • Boykin v. Alabama
    • 395 US 238 (1969). A trial court has the constitutional duty to ensure that a defendant, before pleading guilty, has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences. The court is not required to engage in any particular litany when allocuting the defendant, but 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.” See also People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 19; North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25, 31.
  • HUD v Rucker, et al.
    • 122 S. Ct. 1230 (2002). U.S. Supreme Court opinion upholding federal statute that requires lease terms that give local public housing authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of the drug-related activity. Read the syllabus.
  • People v. Ford
    • 86 N.Y.2d 397, 657 N.E.2d 265, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270 (October 24, 1995). This seminal Court of Appeals opinion notes the important distinction between collateral and direct consequences of criminal convictions. Judges are responsible for informing defendants of direct consequences, not collateral consequences. “Collateral consequences ‘are peculiar to the individual and generally result from the actions taken by agencies the court does not control.’ A direct consequence ‘is one which has a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on defendant’s punishment.’”