MEHMEL, PETER J., PEOPLE v ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    882
    KA 11-01496
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    PETER J. MEHMEL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    WAGNER & HART, LLP, OLEAN (JANINE C. FODOR OF COUNSEL), FOR
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    LORI PETTIT RIEMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LITTLE VALLEY (KELLY M. BALCOM
    OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a resentence of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry
    M. Himelein, J.), rendered May 31, 2011. Defendant was resentenced
    upon his conviction of robbery in the second degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of
    robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]), and he
    appeals from a resentence imposing a period of postrelease supervision
    in addition to the determinate term of incarceration originally
    imposed. The record establishes that, although County Court had
    advised defendant at the time of the plea that the sentence would
    include a five-year period of postrelease supervision, the court
    neglected to impose the period of postrelease supervision at the time
    of sentencing. As defendant correctly concedes, there is no double
    jeopardy violation with respect to the resentence because he is still
    serving the sentence originally imposed (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d
    621, 630-631; cf. People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198, 217-220, cert denied
    ___ US ___, 
    131 S Ct 125
    ). Defendant contends that the five-year
    period of postrelease supervision was illegal because there was an
    unreasonable delay between the date of the original sentence and that
    of the resentence, in violation of CPL 380.30 (1) (see Williams, 14
    NY3d at 213). We conclude, however, that in resentencing defendant
    the court simply corrected the error it made at the time of the
    original sentence and thus that the resentence was proper (see People
    v Sparber, 10 NY3d 457, 469; see generally People v Howard, 96 AD3d
    1691, 1692).
    Entered:   September 28, 2012                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 11-01496

Filed Date: 9/28/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016