You are here: / / SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST...

SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS FIVE YEARS WHEN IT ACTUALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS, MATTER SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, sent the case back for resentencing because it appeared the sentencing judge was under the misimpression the minimum period of post release supervision (PRS) was five years, when the minimum was two and a half years:

At the time of defendant's plea, the court, counsel, and the prosecution believed defendant was a predicate felony offender. The plea offer contained the mandatory five-year term of PRS for a second felony offender convicted of a first violent felony offense (see Penal Law §§ 70.00[6], 70.45[2][f]). At sentencing, however, when defense counsel stated that defendant was not, in fact, a predicate felon, the sentencing court asked whether defendant's status as a first felony offender “change[d] our circumstances.” Defense counsel responded, “I think the minimum is still three and a half.” The court later asked, “Is there any reason that I should not impose the sentence of three-and- one-half years plus five years of post-release supervision?” Defense counsel replied, “Even if it was not quote unquote agreed upon, that would have been the best Your Honor could have given.” As indicated, the defense counsel's statement was correct as to the prison term, but not as to the period of PRS. People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 06055, First Dept 9-13-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS FIVE YEARS WHEN IT ACTUALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS, MATTER SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT))/POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS)  (SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS FIVE YEARS WHEN IT ACTUALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS, MATTER SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S ‘DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL’ ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S CASE WAS CLOSED; THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S ULTIMATE SUCCESS WAS UNLIKELY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
Supreme Court’s Denial of Application for Stationary Engineer License Based on Applicant’s Criminal Record Reversed
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH, IN PART, CONTRADICTED HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY (FIRST DEPT).
Labor Law 240 (1) Concerns Only Whether Proper Safety Equipment Was Provided—Comparative Negligence Is Not Relevant
Allegation in Notice of Claim that Defendant Failed to Maintain a Stairway Was Sufficient to Encompass the Allegation the Handrail Was Obstructed and Could Not Be Used
PLAINTIFF INJURED BY A PORTION OF A ROOF WHICH FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS BEING DEMOLISHED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PROPERTY MANAGER COULD BE LIABLE AS AGENT OF OWNER.
Under Mental Hygiene Law, Claim Made for Payment from Nursing Home Resident’s Guardianship Account During Resident’s Life Had Priority over Claim by Department of Social Services After Resident’s Death
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ $96,000, CONSTITUTING TWO MONTHS’ RENT AND A SECURITY DEPOSIT, WAS TRANSFERRED TO DEFENDANT FROM AN ATTORNEY’S IOLA ACCOUNT, THE $96,000 CONSTITUTED AN “IDENTIFIABLE FUND” WHICH DEFENDANT “CONVERTED” WHEN IT WAS NOT RETURNED (FIRST 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

WHETHER THE POLICE RECEIVED VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO ENTER AN APARTMENT IS A MIXED... SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, TRIVIALITY IS NOT A QUESTION...