PEOPLE v. CATU

The record of the hearing on defendant's CPL 440.10 motion supports the court's determination ( 193 Misc.2d 623) that knowledge of the post-release supervision component of the sentence would not have affected defendant's decision to plead guilty ( see United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780; People v. Ammarito, 306 A.D.2d 99; People v. Melio, 304 A.D.2d 247). The record similarly establishes that counsel provided effective assistance in connection with the plea ( see People v. McDonald, N.Y.2d [Nov 24, 2003], 2003 WL 22764237; People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404). People v. Rosenthal ( 305 A.D.2d 327) is not to the contrary. There, we reduced the sentence because the circumstances indicated it was excessive and not because defendant was not advised of post-release supervision.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.