You are here: / / Okay to Resentence to Determinate Sentence With No Postrelease Supervision...

Okay to Resentence to Determinate Sentence With No Postrelease Supervision Where Initial Sentence Omitted Reference to Postrelease Supervision

The Fourth Department determined defendant was properly resentenced to a determinate sentence without a period of post-release supervision as a remedy for the failure to inform the defendant of the post-release supervision the first time around:

…[T]he court properly resentenced defendant pursuant to Penal Law § 70.85 to the original sentence without imposing a period of PRS.  The statute permits the sentencing judge, with the consent of the People, to “re-impose the originally imposed determinate sentences of imprisonment without any term of post-release supervision.”  The statute was enacted to “avoid the need to vacate guilty pleas under … when defendants are not properly advised of mandatory terms of postrelease supervision” … .  Here, the People requested that the court resentence defendant pursuant to section 70.85, and the court granted that request.  The fact that defendant did not ask for resentencing is of no moment … People v Bennefield, 920, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

You might also like
Naming Different Victim Rendered Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective
PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS PROPERLY MAILED TO MOTHER AND MOTHER PRESENTED EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT; A HEARING ON WHETHER MOTHER WAS PROPERLY SERVED IS REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
Two Dissenting Justices Found Defendant’s Sentence Excessive Under the Facts
Right of First Refusal Not Triggered by Partition Action
PETITIONER DID NOT LIVE IN THE TOWN WHERE THE CHALLENGED CANDIDATE WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STRUCK THE RESPONDENT CANDIDATES’ ANSWER BASED UPON ALLEGED DEFECTS IN THE VERIFICATION AND DENIALS (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT ACTED SUSPICIOUSLY THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION HE WAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT FLED; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Requirement that Defendant Submit Affidavit in Support of Suppression Motion;... Criteria for Allowing Defendant to Proceed Pro Se Explained