Jackson v. Moody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jackson v. Moody

220 A.D.2d 914, 632 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10175

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 19, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 914 (Jackson v. Moody) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackson v. Moody, 220 A.D.2d 914, 632 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered December 28, 1994 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondents computing petitioner’s prison sentence.

On April 18, 1985, petitioner was sentenced to two concurrent prison terms of 10 to 20 years after being convicted of the crimes of robbery in the first degree and criminal use of firearms in the first degree. He remained in the Nassau County Jail pending the resolution of an indictment charging him with an unrelated burglary. Thereafter, petitioner was convicted of the burglary charge and on July 3, 1985 was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 10 to 20 years to run "consecutively with the sentence presently being served”. Petitioner contends that because he was not remanded to the custody of respondent Department of Correctional Services until August 9, 1985, he was not serving a sentence at the time the July 3, 1985 sentence was imposed and, consequently, this sentence should not have been computed to run consecutive to the prior sentence.

We find petitioner’s argument to be without merit. The sentencing minutes reveal that the court clearly intended the July 3, 1985 sentence to run consecutive to the sentence imposed three months earlier on April 18, 1985. The fact that petitioner had not been physically delivered to the custody of the Department of Correctional Services as of July 3, 1985 is not dispositive. Petitioner was serving time in a local jail for which he was entitled to credit toward his April 18, 1985 sentence (see, Penal Law § 70.30 [3]) and, in essence, had begun [915]*915to serve his time on this sentence when the July 3, 1985 sentence was imposed. Accordingly, we find that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

Mikoll, J. P., White, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered December 28, 1994 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondents computing petitioner’s prison sentence.

On April 18, 1985, petitioner was sentenced to two concurrent prison terms of 10 to 20 years after being convicted of the crimes of robbery in the first degree and criminal use of firearms in the first degree. He remained in the Nassau County Jail pending the resolution of an indictment charging him with an unrelated burglary. Thereafter, petitioner was convicted of the burglary charge and on July 3, 1985 was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 10 to 20 years to run "consecutively with the sentence presently being served”. Petitioner contends that because he was not remanded to the custody of respondent Department of Correctional Services until August 9, 1985, he was not serving a sentence at the time the July 3, 1985 sentence was imposed and, consequently, this sentence should not have been computed to run consecutive to the prior sentence.

We find petitioner’s argument to be without merit. The sentencing minutes reveal that the court clearly intended the July 3, 1985 sentence to run consecutive to the sentence imposed three months earlier on April 18, 1985. The fact that petitioner had not been physically delivered to the custody of the Department of Correctional Services as of July 3, 1985 is not dispositive. Petitioner was serving time in a local jail for which he was entitled to credit toward his April 18, 1985 sentence (see, Penal Law § 70.30 [3]) and, in essence, had begun [915]*915to serve his time on this sentence when the July 3, 1985 sentence was imposed. Accordingly, we find that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

Mikoll, J. P., White, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 914, 632 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-moody-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack