You are here: / SENTENCING

Tag Archive for: SENTENCING

JUDGE MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO TREAT AN ELIGIBLE YOUTH AS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, EVEN WHEN THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT ASK THE JUDGE TO DO SO (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a concurring opinion and a two-judge dissent, determined that a judge must consider whether an eligible youth should be treated as a youthful offender, even where the defendant makes no request to do so:

CPL 720.20 (1) says that, where a defendant is eligible to be treated as a youthful offender, the sentencing court “must” determine whether he or she is to be so treated. We hold that compliance with this statutory command cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to [*2]make such a request. In so holding, we overrule People v McGowen (42 NY2d 905 [1977]). * * *

We read the legislature’s use of the word “must” in this context to reflect a policy choice that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain. Ordinarily, of course, defendants may choose to give up their rights, even very important ones, and indeed are deemed to have done so if they do not timely assert them. But this right—not a right to receive youthful offender treatment, but to have a court decide whether such treatment is justified—is different. To disable a court from making that decision is effectively to hold that the defendant may not have the opportunity for a fresh start, without a criminal record, even if the judge would conclude that that opportunity is likely to turn the young offender into a law-abiding, productive member of society.

The judgment of a court as to which young people have a real likelihood of turning their lives around is just too valuable, both to the offender and to the community, to be sacrificed in plea bargaining. Of course there will be many cases in which the interests of the community demand that youthful offender treatment be denied, and that the young offender be sentenced like any other criminal; indeed, there will be cases in which that is obviously the right course—but the court must make the decision in every case. Where the court’s ruling is a foregone conclusion, no purpose is served by a plea bargain that takes the decision out of the court’s hands. People v Rudolph, 2013 NY Slip Op 04840 [21 NY3d 497], CtApp 6-27-13

 

 

Resentencing (Re: Postrelease Supervision) of Defendants Who Have Completed Determinate Sentence But Are Still Serving Aggregate Sentence Does Not Violate Double Jeopardy

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals determined defendants who have completed the determinate sentence for which mandatory postrelease supervision was not imposed but have not completed their aggregated sentences under Penal Law 70.30 can be resentenced to postrelease supervision without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause:

In these unrelated cases, each defendant claims that the imposition of mandatory postrelease supervision (PRS) to his determinate sentence at resentencing violates the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause of the federal constitution. Defendants claim that they have completed their determinate sentences, therefore imposition of PRS violates the prohibition against multiple punishments. We conclude that the respective resentences do not constitute violations of the Double Jeopardy clause because defendants do not have a legitimate expectation of finality until they have completed their aggregated sentences under Penal Law § 70.30.  People v Brinson… Nos 135, 136, CtApp 6-26-13

 

, , ,

Article 78 Petition in Nature of Prohibition Against Judge and District Attorney Granted

The Second Department explained the criteria for an Article 78 action (against a judge and district attorney) in the nature of prohibition.  In this case Supreme Court had ordered defendant to appear for resentencing after the Appellate Division had ruled without remitting the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings.  The Second Department granted the petition and prohibited the resentencing:

The remedy of prohibition generally lies when a court or an officer acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction or exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction (see CPLR 7803[2];…). To warrant the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, it is not enough that the court made a mere legal error. Rather, the court’s error must implicate its very powers and thereby be subject to correction by prohibition….  Matter of Dow v Tomei, 2013 NY Slip Op 04799, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

Motion to Withdraw Plea Should Have Been Granted

In determining defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea (which had been based in part upon the disposition of another indictment subsequently dismissed) should have been granted, the Second Department wrote:

Defendant pleaded guilty as part of a joint disposition of this case and another case, upon which he would be receiving a concurrent sentence of one year. However, the other indictment was dismissed, with finality, before defendant’s sentencing. The court should have granted defendant’s plea withdrawal motion, made on the ground that the plea had been induced by a promise that was ultimately unfulfilled…. The record establishes that defendant’s plea was induced in large part by the court’s specific representation that defendant was resolving two pending prosecutions. “It simply cannot be said on this record that defendant . . . would have pleaded guilty absent this assurance” …. As the dismissal of the other indictment amounted to a fundamental change in a “condition that induced [defendant’s] admission of guilt” …, he was entitled to withdraw his plea ….  People v Bennett, 2013 NY Slip Op 04714, 1st Dept, 6-20-13

 

County Court Had Jurisdiction to Correct 1999 Sentence Which Did Not Include Period of Post-Release Supervision

The Third Department noted that County Court had jurisdiction to correct defendant’s 1999 sentence, which did not include post-release supervision:

Defendant’s contention that County Court lacked jurisdiction due to an alleged unreasonable delay in correcting the sentence is without merit.    A delay in resentencing pursuant to Correction Law § 601-d is “not jurisdictional in nature and do[es] not deprive the court of the authority to correct an illegal sentence and resentence a defendant to a term of incarceration that includes a period of postrelease supervision”… . Furthermore, because defendant had not completed serving his initial sentence, the sentence was still subject to correction without invoking the protection against double jeopardy… .  People v Siler, 105042, 3rd Dept, 6-20-13

 

Victim’s Mother Should Not Have Been Allowed to Speak at Sentencing Because Defendant Convicted Only of Possession of Weapon, Not the Killing of the Victim/Failure to Inform Defendant of Pending Criminal Charges Against Prosecution Witnesses Not Error

The Third Department vacated defendant’s sentence because the victim’s mother was allowed to speak at sentencing.  Defendant was convicted only of possession of a weapon and not the killing of the victim.  The Third Department also noted that the failure to inform the defendant of pending charges against three prosecution witnesses was not a Rosario violation and was not otherwise required under the facts:

…[W]e find that County  Court abused  its discretion in allowing [the victim’s] mother  to speak at the sentencing hearing. There is no victim of the crime upon which defendant was convicted, as criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree requires only the possession of a firearm by  a person previously convicted of a crime … . Here, defendant’s conviction upon this charge was supported by evidence wholly separate from the circumstances surrounding [the victim’s] death, as [a witness] testified that he had provided the handgun to defendant the day prior.It was thus error to allow the mother to give a statement in which she described defendant as a “killer” who “got away with murder.” Moreover, we find merit in defendant’s contention, though not preserved …, that despite promising it would not consider the mother’s statement in imposing sentence, County Court may have considered the homicide charges when it sentenced him to the statutory maximum prison sentence of 3½ to 7 years.    As defendant contends, from a review of the sentencing transcript, it appears that the court improperly attributed guilt for [the victim’s] death to him.  *  *  *

The People’s failure to inform defendant of criminal charges pending against three prosecution witnesses does not constitute a Rosario violation … .  We  further note that two of these individuals did not  testify at trial…, and  disclosure regarding the disorderly conduct charge against the third …was not statutorily required, as the People were unaware  of that recent charge at the time of trial (see CPL 240.45 [1] [c];…).    Contrary to defendant’s contention, it is not reasonable under the circumstances here presented to impute knowledge of that pending charge to the entire District Attorney’s office.  People v Sheppard, 103880/104958, 3rd Dept, 6-20-13

 

Parole Violation Did Not Preclude Application for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act

The Fourth Department determined County Court erred when it denied defendant’s application for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act on the ground defendant was a reincarcerated parole violator.  Nor did it matter that defendant was released from parole supervision after he made the application.  People v Saffold, 666, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

No Determinate Sentences for Youthful Offenders 

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Stein, the Third Department concluded that the sentencing guidelines for youthful offenders do not allow the imposition of a determinate sentence:

Penal Law  §  60.02 (2) provides, as relevant here, that a sentencing court must  impose  upon  a youthful offender “a sentence authorized to be imposed upon a person convicted of a class E felony” (emphasis added).   In turn, the permissible prison sentence for a person convicted of an undesignated class E felony is an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of one year and a maximum of four years (see Penal Law §  70.00  [2] [e]). * * *

When Penal Law § 60.02 (2) is read in conjunction with CPL 720.20 (1) (a), it is clear that the authorized sentence for a youthful offender adjudication substituted for any  felony conviction is an indeterminate term that does not exceed a maximum of four years, “regardless  of  the  classification of  the  felony  committed”… .  People v Jorge D, 104930, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

 

Court Did Not Abuse Discretion In Not Sentencing Pursuant to Jenna’s Law Even Though Defendant Qualified​

The Second Department, over a dissent by Justice Balkin, affirmed a determinate sentence of five years in prison.  The sentencing court chose not to apply Penal Law 60.12 (Jenna’s Law) which allows indeterminate terms of imprisonment for first-time violent felons if the victim’s domestic violence was a factor in the commission of the crime (criteria met by the defendant).  The sentencing court noted that the defendant would probably never commit another crime, but imposed the sentence as a deterrent to others:

While the court accurately noted that the sentence would have limited deterrent and rehabilitative impact on this particular defendant, the court’s aim in imposing the sentence was, in large part, to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct. Indeed, the court stated at sentencing that “[s]ociety certainly must be concerned with self-help, violent behavior that is not sanctioned by law.” Since the court viewed general deterrence as an overriding sentencing principle, we cannot say that the emphasis was erroneous or that the interest of justice calls for a reduction in the defendant’s sentence …. People v Sheehan, 2013 NY Slip Op 03859, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

10-Year Period for Predicate Felony Tolled by Incarceration​

The Second Department noted that incarceration tolls the 10-year period for consideration of a predicate felony:

Although the period of time between the defendant’s 1999 conviction and the commission of the felonies for which he stands convicted in this case was more than 10 years, the 1999 conviction constituted a predicate felony for purposes of second felony offender sentencing, since the 10-year statutory period was tolled while the defendant was incarcerated from May 5, 2000, to February 22, 2007 (see Penal Law §§ 70.06[1][b][iv], [v]; 70.70[3][b][i]). People v McCray, 2013 NY Slip Op 03857, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

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