MIKE, CHARLES, PEOPLE v ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1272
    KA 11-02028
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    CHARLES MIKE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE
    OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County
    (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered July 12, 2011. Defendant was
    resentenced upon his conviction of assault in the second degree and
    criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant was convicted in 1999 upon a jury verdict
    of, inter alia, assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05) and
    criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03), and
    Supreme Court failed to impose a period of postrelease supervision
    with respect to those counts as required by Penal Law § 70.45 (1).
    Pursuant to Correction Law § 601-d, the same court resentenced
    defendant to add the requisite period of PRS while he was serving his
    sentence. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the resentence does not
    violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the US Constitution or his due
    process rights (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-633). The Court
    of Appeals in Lingle explicitly rejected defendant’s present
    contention that he had served a significant portion of his sentence
    and thus had a reasonable expectation of the finality of his sentence
    (see id. at 630-631; People v Faeth, 107 AD3d 1426, 1428, lv denied 21
    NY3d 1073). The Court also explicitly rejected defendant’s instant
    contention that the resentence to correct a Sparber error violates his
    due process rights (see Lingle, 16 NY3d at 632-633). Indeed, the
    court was bound to impose “statutorily-required sentences” (id. at
    633; see People v Quinney, 104 AD3d 1161, 1162, lv denied 21 NY3d
    1008).
    Entered:   January 2, 2015                         Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 11-02028

Filed Date: 1/2/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/2/2015