You are here: / RE-SENTENCING

Tag Archive for: RE-SENTENCING

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF THE WAIVER WAS ERRONEOUS; NO ASSURANCE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHTS WAIVED BY GUILTY PLEA AND APPELLATE RIGHTS.

The First Department sent the matter back for resentencing because the record suggested the sentencing judge erroneously thought he did not have the power to impose a reduced sentence. The First Department determined the defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because the sentencing judge erroneously stated the relevant law and did not make sure the defendant understood the difference between the rights waived by entering a guilty plea and his appellate rights:

Defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, where the court failed to adequately ensure defendant’s understanding that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty … . The court’s statement that defendant was “waiving [his] right to appeal any legal issues connected with the case, including the sentence” (emphasis added) was incorrect, insofar as a defendant cannot waive certain rights, such as the right to challenge the legality of a sentence or raise a speedy trial claim … . The court’s further statement that the “right of appeal is waived by [defendant], the rights I just mentioned are automatically waived by a plea” was insufficient to explain that the right to appeal is not included with those automatically waived by a guilty plea, since the court had “just mentioned” that right. Moreover, defendant’s execution of a written waiver “does not, standing alone, provide sufficient assurance that the defendant is knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily giving up his or her right to appeal” … . People v Flores, 2015 NY Slip Op 08905, 1st  Dept 12-3-15

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER INVALID)/WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID

,

No Appeal to the Court of Appeals Lies from the Appellate Division’s Affirmance of the Denial of Resentencing Pursuant to the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA)

The Court of Appeals determined no appeal lies from the Appellate Division’s affirmance of the denial of resentencing pursuant to the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA). The fact that the order (denying resentencing) was consolidated with appealable orders did not confer jurisdiction to hear the appeal upon the Court of Appeals:

“It is well established that no appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless specifically provided for by statute,” and courts “may not resort to interpretative contrivances to broaden the scope and application of statutes” governing the availability of an appeal … . [W]e have held that no statutory provision authorizes a defendant to appeal from an Appellate Division order affirming the denial of the defendant’s resentencing application pursuant to the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act … . The 2004 DLRA includes similar language relating to appeals; accordingly, no appeal lies from an order of the Appellate Division affirming the denial of a resentencing application under the 2004 DLRA … . Faced with this barrier to our review, defendant contends that the Appellate Division’s consolidation of the order denying resentencing with other, appealable orders, transformed the nonappealable order into one that we may consider. We disagree. The Appellate Division’s authority to consolidate appeals stems from its inherent authority to administer and manage its proceedings. The Appellate Division’s use of this inherent authority does not expand or modify the scope of our jurisdiction, which is established by statute. People v Lovett, 2015 NY Slip Op 05512, CtApp 6-25-15

 

Resentencing Required—Sentencing Court Unaware It Had Discretion Re: Length of the Postrelease Supervision Period

The Second Department sent the matter back for resentencing because the judge was unaware he/she had the discretion as to the length of the postrelease period:

… [R]esentencing is required because the record supports the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court was unaware that it had discretion as to the length of the period of PRS. Specifically, the court stated that the law required it to impose a period of PRS of 5 years. In fact, the court had the authority to impose a period of PRS of between 2½ years and 5 years (Penal Law § 70.45[2][f]). People v Battee, 2015 NY Slip Op 05491, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

Reduced Sentences Pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act Apply to Those on Parole As Well As Those Who Are Incarcerated

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the ability to apply for a reduced sentence for drug offenses pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act applied to those on parole, as well as those who are incarcerated: “The issue presented by this appeal is whether the 2011 amendments to CPL 440.46 expanded the class of defendants eligible for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act to include those who are on parole at the time resentencing is sought. We left this question open in People v Paulin (17 NY3d 238, 243 [2011]) and People v Santiago (17 NY3d 246, 247 [2011]), and now hold that the amendments did expand eligibility to parolees …” . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 04163, CtApp 5-14-15

 

Resentencing Defendant to Original Sentence (Imposing No Post Release Supervision) Did Not Require Defendant’s Presence

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant was properly sentenced even though he was not present at the resentencing.  The original sentence did not include a period of post release supervision [PRS].  The resentence also did not impose PRS.  Therefore, there was no error which adversely affected the defendant:

Defendant … contends that the court erred in conducting the resentence in his absence and without assigning counsel (see Correction Law § 601-d [4] [a]; CPL 380.40 [1]…). That contention is not properly before us because we may only “consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect . . . which may have adversely affected the appellant” (CPL 470.15 [1]). Here, the only issue presented at resentencing was whether the court would impose a period of PRS, and the District Attorney had already informed the court and defendant in writing that the People would consent to the reimposition of the original sentence, i.e., without a period of PRS. Inasmuch as the court reimposed that original sentence, “defendant was not adversely affected by any error, because the result, i.e., freedom from having to serve a term of PRS [with respect to this count of the indictment], was in his favor” … . People v Mills, 2014 NY Slip Op 03388, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

,

Defendant Was Apparently Erroneously Sentenced to Five Years When the Correct Sentence Was 15 Years—Pursuant to a Resettlement of the Sentencing Transcript Two Months After Defendant’s Release, He Was Resentenced to 15 Years—Because Defendant Had a Legitimate Expectation of Finality Re: the Five-Year Sentence, the Resentence Violated the Double Jeopardy Clause

The Second Department determined defendant’s resentencing violated the Double Jeopardy clause.  Defendant had been erroneously sentenced to five years for criminal possession of a weapon when the sentence apparently should have been 15 years.  After defendant’s successful habeas corpus action, his assault conviction was vacated and he was released from prison, having served 8 years.  Two months after his release, pursuant to a resettlement proceeding to correct an error in the sentencing transcript, the defendant was resentenced to 15 years and reincarcerated:

Courts possess “the inherent power to correct their records, where the correction relates to mistakes, or errors, which may be termed clerical in their nature, or where it is made in order to conform the record to the truth” … . This inherent authority extends to circumstances “where it clearly appears that a mistake or error occurred at the time a sentence was imposed” … . However, as with resentencing, an order correcting an error in a transcript of a sentencing proceeding is subject to a temporal limitation imposed by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution … .

The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a sentence from being increased once a defendant has a legitimate expectation of finality of the sentence … . “[A] legitimate expectation of finality turns on the completion of a sentence” … . Here, the resettlement of the sentencing transcript almost three years after the sentence was purportedly satisfied, and more than two months after the defendant’s release from prison in purported full satisfaction of that sentence, violated the constitutional prohibition on subjecting a criminal defendant to double jeopardy. For more than seven years after the sentence was imposed, the People represented to the defendant, and to State and federal courts, that the transcript accurately reflected a five-year sentence. Accordingly, upon his release from prison, the defendant had served out his sentence “as reasonably understood by all the parties” … . He thus acquired a legitimate expectation of finality with respect to the sentence, and the later resettlement of the transcript of the sentencing proceeding violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause … . People v Langston, 2014 NY Slip Op 07182, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Is Available to a Persistent Felony Offender As Long As the Offender Has Not Been Convicted of Any of the Serious Offenses Enumerated in Correction Law 803

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, resolved a conflict among the appellate division departments about the applicability of the Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA) to persistent felony offenders.  The court determined that the resentencing allowed by the DLRA for certain drug-related offenses is available to persistent felony offenders who have not been convicted of any of the serious crimes enumerated in Correction Law 803:

The Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 (see L 2009, ch 56, § 1, hereinafter “2009 DLRA”) provides remedial resentencing to low-level non-violent felony drug offenders who meet various basic eligibility requirements (see CPL 440.46 [1]). The 2009 DLRA, however, denies resentencing to any offender who is serving a sentence for an “exclusion offense,” which is, among other things, an “offense for which a merit time allowance is not available pursuant to [Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii)]” (CPL 440.46 [5]; CPL 440.46 [5] [a] [ii]). Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii), in turn, makes a merit time allowance unavailable to an offender who is serving a sentence imposed for any of the violent or sexual crimes specifically enumerated in that statute, without regard to the offender's predicate sentencing status (see Correction Law § 803 [1] [d] [ii]). That statute also prevents any offender serving a sentence “authorized for an A-I felony offense” from receiving a merit time allowance (id.), thereby denying such an allowance to anyone who has been sentenced as a persistent felony offender (see Penal Law §§ 70.02 [2] [a]; 70.02 [3] [a] [i]; 70.10 [2]).

In interpreting the language of these interlocking statutes, the Departments of the Appellate Division are divided over the proper answer to the following question: does the DLRA resentencing exclusion apply to all offenders who are ineligible to receive a merit time allowance, including those who cannot receive those allowances solely by virtue of their recidivist sentencing adjudications; or, to the contrary, does it apply only to offenders who have been convicted of certain serious crimes that are specifically listed in Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii) and eliminate the possibility of a merit time allowance regardless of an offender's recidivist sentencing adjudication? We hold that the exclusion applies only to offenders who have been convicted of one or more of the serious crimes that automatically render merit time allowances unavailable under Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii), and that therefore an offender who has no such conviction may be resentenced, notwithstanding his or her adjudication as a persistent felony offender. People v Coleman, 2014 NY Slip Op 07010, CtApp 10-16-2014

 

Parole Violators May Apply for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act—County Court Properly Denied the Application Based Upon the Nature of Defendant’s Convictions and Serious Prison Infractions

In affirming County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act, the Third Department noted that the fact that defendant violated parole did not prevent him from applying for resentencing:

While parole violators may indeed apply for resentencing, denial of such an application may be warranted if they “have shown by their conduct that they do not deserve relief from their sentences” … . Defendant has a violent criminal history and, indeed, his most recent criminal conviction and parole violation stem from his possession of a defaced and loaded handgun. The record further reveals that defendant has a lengthy record of serious prison disciplinary infractions, many of them involving violence. We thus find that, notwithstanding defendant’s positive programming achievements while incarcerated, “County Court properly exercised its discretion in finding that substantial justice would not be served by resentencing” him … . People v Allen, 2014 NY Slip Op 04087, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

Applicant Eligible for Relief Under Drug Sentencing Reform Statute Must Be Afforded a Hearing

The Third Department noted that an applicant who is eligible of for a relief under the “drug sentencing reform” statute, CPL 440.46, must be afforded a hearing.  People v Cain, 2014 NY Slip Op 03711, 3rd Dept 5-22-14

 

Two Dissenting Justices Found Defendant’s Sentence Excessive Under the Facts

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, found that the defendant’s application for resentencing under the Drug Reform Act was properly denied.  The decision is notable for the dissents, which forcefully argued defendant’s sentence was harsh and excessive in light of all the facts. People v Lovett, 2014 NY Slip Op 02329, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy