Parrilla v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parrilla v. Goord

274 A.D.2d 820, 711 N.Y.S.2d 570, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8056

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 20, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal [821]*821from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered January 26, 2000 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review á determination of respondent calculating the length of petitioner’s sentence.

On September 7, 1990, petitioner was convicted of the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree and sentenced to a prison term of 21/s to 7 years. On November 5, 1990, petitioner was sentenced to a concurrent prison term of 2V3 to 7 years for a conviction of robbery in the second degree. Petitioner was subsequently released in December 1992 to parole supervision. Petitioner thereafter committed another crime and, on June 24, 1996, was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of 71/2 to 15 years for attempted murder in the second degree. Because the sentencing court did not indicate whether this latter sentence was to run consecutively or concurrently with the first one, petitioner contends that it must run concurrently. We disagree. Regardless of Supreme Court’s silence on this issue, petitioner’s 1996 sentence was required by law to be served consecutively to his preexisting unexpired sentence (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]; Matter of White v Van Zandt, 236 AD2d 763; Matter of Jackson v Wolford, 232 AD2d 795, lv denied 89 NY2d 806).

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Graffeo, Rose and Lahtinen, 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 [821]*821from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered January 26, 2000 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review á determination of respondent calculating the length of petitioner’s sentence.

On September 7, 1990, petitioner was convicted of the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree and sentenced to a prison term of 21/s to 7 years. On November 5, 1990, petitioner was sentenced to a concurrent prison term of 2V3 to 7 years for a conviction of robbery in the second degree. Petitioner was subsequently released in December 1992 to parole supervision. Petitioner thereafter committed another crime and, on June 24, 1996, was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of 71/2 to 15 years for attempted murder in the second degree. Because the sentencing court did not indicate whether this latter sentence was to run consecutively or concurrently with the first one, petitioner contends that it must run concurrently. We disagree. Regardless of Supreme Court’s silence on this issue, petitioner’s 1996 sentence was required by law to be served consecutively to his preexisting unexpired sentence (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]; Matter of White v Van Zandt, 236 AD2d 763; Matter of Jackson v Wolford, 232 AD2d 795, lv denied 89 NY2d 806).

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Graffeo, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Parrilla v. Goord, 274 A.D.2d 820, 711 N.Y.S.2d 570, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

274 A.D.2d 820 (Parrilla v. Goord) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related