WATKINS, JUDSON, PEOPLE v ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    918
    KA 14-00235
    PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    JUDSON WATKINS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (ROMANA A. LAVALAS
    OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of
    the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of
    the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), entered December 18,
    2013. The order denied the motion of defendant pursuant to CPL 440.20
    (1).
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously reversed on the law, the motion is granted, the sentence
    is set aside and the matter is remitted to Onondaga County Court for
    resentencing.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals by permission of this Court
    pursuant to CPL 460.15 from an order denying his motion pursuant to
    CPL 440.20 (1) seeking to set aside his sentence on the ground that he
    was improperly adjudicated a persistent felony offender. We agree
    with defendant that County Court erred in denying the motion upon
    determining that this issue was previously addressed on the merits
    (see CPL 440.20 [2], [3]). Although defendant has filed four prior
    CPL article 440 motions, one of which was considered by this Court on
    appeal (People v Watkins, 79 AD3d 1648, lv denied 16 NY3d 800), the
    precise issue raised herein was not addressed by this Court on that
    appeal or on defendant’s direct appeal (People v Watkins, 17 AD3d
    1083, 1084, lv denied 5 NY3d 771). On the merits, we agree with
    defendant that the court erred in designating him a persistent felony
    offender because he had not been sentenced to a period of more than
    one year on two of the three proposed predicate felonies (see Penal
    Law § 70.10 [1] [b] [i]). Although the People are correct that the
    prior felony convictions of robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10)
    and attempted burglary in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 140.25) are
    predicate violent felony offenses that satisfy the requirements to
    determine that defendant is a persistent violent felony offender (see
    § 70.08 [1] [a]), the record does not establish whether those
    -2-                          918
    KA 14-00235
    convictions meet the criteria of section 70.08 (1) (b), and we
    therefore decline the People’s request to modify defendant’s
    designation. Thus, we reverse the order, grant the motion, vacate the
    sentence and remit the matter to County Court for resentencing.
    Entered:   November 10, 2016                   Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 14-00235

Filed Date: 11/10/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/11/2016