You are here: / / CONSECUTIVE PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION VIOLATED THE PENAL LAW;...
,

CONSECUTIVE PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION VIOLATED THE PENAL LAW; ERROR DID NOT NEED TO BE PRESERVED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that consecutive periods of postrelease supervision violated the Penal Law and the issue did not need to be preserved:

County Court erred in imposing consecutive periods of postrelease supervision in violation of Penal Law § 70.45 (5) (c) … . Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, the lack of preservation “is of no moment, inasmuch as we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand” … . We therefore modify the judgment by directing that the periods of postrelease supervision imposed shall run concurrently. People v Hyde, 2020 NY Slip Op 03319, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

You might also like
SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASSURE DEFENDANT OF ADMISSION INTO THE SHOCK PROGRAM, DEFENDANT’S PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
WHERE A MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION IS BASED UPON EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE HEARING ON THE MOTION; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RESTRICTED THE PRESENTATIOIN OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE TO ONLY THOSE WHICH WERE OUTSIDE THE RECORD (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION ASPECT OF HIS SENTENCE, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH ONE OF THREE STATEMENTS MADE TO A DETECTIVE AFTER DEFENDANT HAD INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT SPONTANEOUS, ITS ADMISSION WAS HARMLESS ERROR; THE DISSENT ARGUED ALL THREE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS (FOURTH DEPT).
References to Counsel Did Not Constitute an Unequivocal Request for Counsel
Duration of Supervised Visits Cannot Be Left Up to Supervising Agency
Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) Applied to the Driver of a Town Truck—The Driver Was Using a Plow to Remove Water and Debris from a Road—Because the Driver Was Acting On His Own and Had Not Been Assigned to Remove the Water and Debris, the Question Raised on Appeal Was Whether the Driver Was Doing “Work” within the Meaning of Section 1103 (b) such that the Statutory Standard, as Opposed to the Ordinary Negligence Standard, Applied
Defendant Could Not Deny Ownership Of Vehicle (Which Was Allegedly Transferred to Another Prior to the Accident) Because License Plates Had Not Been Removed

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

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND MENACING A POLICE OFFICER CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST... NEW YORK DETERMINED TO BE AN INCONVENIENT FORUM IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER (FOURTH...