You are here: / RE-SENTENCING

Tag Archive for: RE-SENTENCING

,

Because Defendant’s Resentence to Remedy the Failure to Impose a Period of Post-Release Supervision Was On Appeal, Defendant Had Not Acquired a Legitimate Expectation of Finality in His Sentence such that the Double Jeopardy Clause Was Implicated

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined, under the facts, the imposition of a period of post-release supervision [PRS] after defendant completed his sentence (which was illegal because it did not include a period of post-release supervision) did not violate the Double Jeopardy clause.  Because the resentence was being appealed, the defendant had not yet “acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence:”

Defendant … moved to vacate his conviction under Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.10. Supreme Court denied the motion to vacate the conviction. The court nevertheless noted that defendant's sentence was illegal because it did not include the mandatory term of PRS … and ordered that defendant be resentenced. Defendant was conditionally released in May 2008. One month later, Supreme Court resentenced defendant to the original concurrent terms of imprisonment, as well as a five-year term of PRS. In October 2009, the maximum term of his prison sentence passed.   * * *

The protection against multiple punishments protects defendants from having their sentences increased once they have acquired “legitimate expectations of finality” therein (Williams, 14 NY3d at 214). We explained in Williams that a defendant may acquire a legitimate expectation of finality in an illegal sentence only once “the direct appeal has been completed (or the time to appeal has expired)” and the sentence has been served (id. at 217).

In Velez [19 NY3d 642] , we addressed whether a defendant acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in an illegal sentence where a resentencing proceeding had been instituted but the term of PRS had not yet been imposed prior to the expiration of the sentence. We held that the defendant … acquired a legitimate expectation of finality (19 NY3d at 650). In this case, defendant has served his sentence, but the direct appeal of that sentence is not over; it presently is before us. Consequently, defendant has not acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence.  People v Cintron, 35, CtApp 3-27-14

 

Handling Of Consecutive Sentences Under the Drug Law Reform Act Explained

Finding the resentence excessive, the Second Department reduced defendant’s resentence under the Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA) from five consecutive 20-year terms to five consecutive 15-year terms, noting that because the original sentence (five 25-to-life terms) was consecutive, the terms imposed under the Drug Law Reform Act must also be consecutive:

Here, the defendant sought to be resentenced for the convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, for which he had originally received consecutive sentences amounting to a total aggregate term of imprisonment of 125 years to life. Although the Supreme Court correctly observed that it was powerless, under the DLRA, to alter the defendant’s sentence so that the five terms of imprisonment imposed for the convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree run concurrently with each other …, it was nevertheless permitted to “consider any facts or circumstances relevant to the imposition of a new sentence” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23…). Accordingly, under the circumstances, in evaluating the appropriate terms of imprisonment to impose upon resentencing, the Supreme Court should have considered the fact that the sentences that were originally imposed for the convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree were directed to run consecutively to each other … . Here, since the resentences imposed by the Supreme Court were required to run consecutively with each other, the total aggregate term of imprisonment for the convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree still amounted to 100 years in prison. * * *Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the courts are constrained from giving effect to the ameliorative purpose of the DLRA by directing resentences to run concurrently with each other when they were originally directed to run consecutively …, we conclude that the resentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated… . People v Cole, 2014 NY Slip Op 01182, 2nd Dept 2-19-14

 

Parolees May Move for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, the Second Department determined that parolees are “in custody” within the meaning of the 2011 amendments to the Drug Law Reform Act and, therefore, parolees may move for resentencing under the act:

In 2011, a New York State budget enactment consolidated and modernized several state agencies and created new departments (see L 2011, ch 62). This legislation merged the New York State Department of Correctional Services and the New York State Division of Parole into a single agency, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (see id.). At that time, CPL 440.46(1) was amended by changing “department of correctional services” to “department of corrections and community supervision,” so that now “[a]ny person in the custody of the department of corrections and community supervision,” otherwise qualified, could apply to be resentenced (CPL 440.46[1]). People v Brown, 2014 NY Slip Op 00524, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

, , ,

Constitutionality of Statute Allowing Defective Sentence to Be Remedied by a Sentence Without Post Release Supervision (CPL 70.85) Is an Open Issue Which Should Be Decided by the Sentencing Court in the First Instance/Crawford Motion Relieving Counsel of Perfecting an Appeal Because of the Absence of Non-Frivolous Issues Should Not Have Been Granted

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division should not have granted counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing the defendant on appeal on the ground the appeal would be “wholly frivolous.”  There is an issue whether the statute which allows resentencing the defendant to a term of imprisonment without post release supervision after post release supervision had been (illegally) administratively imposed is constitutional:

Defendant timely appealed the resentence and was assigned counsel, who reviewed the file and informed defendant of our decision in People v Boyd (12 NY3d 390 [2009]), where this court upheld defendant Boyd's sentence under Penal Law § 70.85, but left open the constitutionality of that statute, stating that it should be decided by the sentencing court in the first instance.  Despite this open issue, counsel filed a motion pursuant to People v Crawford … arguing that there were no non-frivolous issues to be raised on defendant's behalf and asking to be relieved as counsel.  Defendant filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that her sentence was illegal, and that she was denied effective assistance of counsel.  The Appellate Division granted counsel's motion and affirmed the resentence, without addressing defendant's pro se contentions (96 AD3d 1515 [2012]).  * * *

Defendant argues that her appeal was not wholly frivolous because she had two claims: (1) the claim that Penal Law § 70.85 is unconstitutional as applied to her case, and (2) that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel at every level.  We agree with defendant that the Appellate Division erred in granting the Crawford motion.  Without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits, at the time defendant's appellate counsel filed his Crawford motion, the claims to that court were not wholly frivolous and, therefore, the court should have denied appellate counsel's motion.  As a result, a reversal and remittal for a de novo appeal is warranted… . People v Beaty, 84, CtApp 1-16-14

 

,

Penal Law 70.85, Which Allows Resentencing without a Period of Post-Release Supervision to Remedy a Defective Sentence, Is Constitutional

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals determined Penal Law 70.85 is constitutional.  Section 70.85 allows the resentencing of a defendant who was not informed about post-release supervision to a sentence that does not include post-release supervision.  The statute was enacted to provide a remedy, other than vacation of the guilty plea, when a plea was entered in the absence of an explanation of the post-release supervision part of the sentence:

By now it is well established that the State Constitution requires a trial court to ensure that a defendant has a “full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences” … .  A guilty plea made without notification from the court about the direct consequence of a PRS term violates the Constitution because it could not have been “a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action”… . * * *

Mindful of the constitutional rights at issue…, we find that section 70.85 is a constitutionally permissible legislative remedy for the defectiveness of the plea.  Defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary because the Legislature has changed the sentencing laws governing pleas vulnerable to …challenge.  Section 70.85 ensures that defendant, who is no longer subject to PRS, pleaded guilty with the requisite awareness of the direct consequences of his plea.  People v Pignataro, 213, CtApp 12-12-13

 

Resentencing to a Sentence Technically Different from the Sentence Agreed to in a Plea Bargain Okay—Resentence Comported With Defendant’s Reasonable Expectations

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the defendant was properly resentenced even though the sentence imposed was technically different from the sentence agreed to in the plea bargain.  The defendant had agreed to a sentence of 25 years and five years for the two crimes, with the sentencing court retaining the option to sentence consecutively, which it did.  It turned out that the five-year sentence was illegal (it had to be a minimum of ten). The defendant was resentenced to the two crimes, but this time concurrently.  Effectively, therefore, the defendant’s original sentence was 30 years, but he was resentenced to 25:

“[A] guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored” … .  “The choice rests in the discretion of the sentencing court” and “there is no indicated preference for one course over the other” … .

The sentencing court may have good reason to reject a defendant’s request to withdraw his plea.  Where, as here, years have gone by since the original plea, it may be difficult for the People to locate witnesses, obtain their renewed cooperation and proceed to trial on the “then stale indictment[]” … .  Under these circumstances, allowing a defendant to withdraw his plea would give him “more than he was entitled” to under the bargain he struck … .  Thus, the People “can hold a defendant to an agreed sentence rather than allow vacation of the plea when it would otherwise be prejudiced” … .

Moreover, specific performance of a plea bargain does not foreclose “technical divergence from the precise terms of the plea agreement” so long as the defendant’s reasonable expectations are met … .  * * *

Thus, if the originally promised sentence cannot be imposed in strict compliance with the plea agreement, the sentencing court may impose another lawful sentence that comports with the defendant’s legitimate expectations.  Again, “the reasonable understanding and expectations of the parties, rather than technical distinctions in semantics, control the question of whether a particular sentence imposed violates a plea agreement”… .  People v Collier, 228, CtApp 12-12-13

 

 

Presumption in Favor of Resentencing (re: the New Scheme for Drug Offenses) Not Rebutted—Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Motion for Resentencing

The Second Department determined the factors relied upon by the resentencing court were not sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of resentencing under Criminal Procedure Law 440.46:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46. Although resentencing is not mandatory, there is a statutory presumption in favor of resentencing (see L 2004, ch 738, § 23; CPL 440.46[3]…). Under the circumstances of this case, the factors relied upon by the Supreme Court in denying the motion–the defendant’s criminal history, disciplinary infractions, and parole violations–are insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption. The defendant served more than 14 years in prison for a low-level drug crime committed when he was 19 years old. The defendant’s criminal history included only larcenous and low-level drug crimes, all committed before he was 20 years old. While the defendant violated his parole by failing to abide by certain parole rules, including, inter alia, by breaking curfew and by traveling to Georgia to be reunited with his family, he has never committed another crime or had a positive drug test. Under all of the circumstances presented here, “the presumption that the defendant is entitled to benefit from the reforms enacted by the Legislature based upon its judgment that the prior sentencing scheme for drug offenses like that committed by the defendant was excessively harsh, has not been rebutted”… . People v Simmons, 2013 NY Slip Op 08103, 2nd Dept 12-4-13

 

Defendant Should Have Been Advised of His Right to Be Heard in Resentencing Proceeding Pursuant to CPL 440.46

The Second Department determined the failure to inform defendant of his right to be heard in a resentencing proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.46 required a remittance:

The statutory procedures governing the determination of a motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 provide, in pertinent part, that “[t]he court shall offer an opportunity for a hearing and bring the applicant before it” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23; see CPL 440.46[3]…). The defendant’s presence is not required for the court’s threshold determination of the purely legal issue of whether the defendant meets the statutory eligibility requirements for relief pursuant to CPL 440.46 …, but the defendant is entitled to appear before the court and to be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to the merits of the resentencing motion … .

Here, the defendant was not brought before the Supreme Court prior to the court’s determination that, although he met the statutory eligibility requirements, substantial justice dictated that his motion for resentencing should be denied. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant was ever advised of his statutory right to be brought before the court, or that he knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily chose to relinquish that right … .The Supreme Court therefore failed to comply with the statutory mandate… .  People v Duke, 2013 NY Slip Op 07983, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

,

Resentencing to a Term of Imprisonment with a Maximum Greater than the Initial Sentence Violates Double Jeopardy Principles

The Third Department determined resentencing defendant to a term of imprisonment with a maximum greater than the initial sentence violated double jeopardy principles:

County Court violated double jeopardy principles when it imposed on defendant an aggregate sentence with a maximum of more than 10 years in prison.  “[T]he key to double jeopardy analysis of a sentence increase is whether the defendant had a legitimate expectation in the finality of his [or her] original sentence” … .  A court violates double jeopardy principles if it subjects a defendant to a greater maximum sentence upon resentencing after the original agreed-upon sentence has been determined to be illegal … .  At the time of resentencing, defendant had served two years of his 10-year prison sentence … .   As defendant had a reasonable expectation of finality in the maximum term of his prison sentence, namely that he would serve no more than 10 years in prison, imposing a maximum prison term greater than 10 years would run afoul of the double jeopardy clause … . Thus, we modify the resentence to an aggregate maximum of 10 years in prison.  People v DePerno, 105100, 3rd Dept 11-21-13

 

,

Sentencing Court’s Reference to a Fine for Driving While Intoxicated as “Mandatory” Required Remittal for Resentencing

The Third Department noted that imposition of both a fine and imprisonment for Driving While Intoxicated is discretionary.  County Court’s indication that the fine was “mandatory” required remittal for resentencing.  People v Olmstead, 105214, 3rd Dept 11-21-13

 

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