People v. Henriquez

112 A.D.3d 1060, 976 N.Y.S.2d 416

This text of 112 A.D.3d 1060 (People v. Henriquez) 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
People v. Henriquez, 112 A.D.3d 1060, 976 N.Y.S.2d 416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Stein, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Buckley, J.), rendered November 8, 2010, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

In 2000, defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of promoting prison contraband in the first degree and was thereafter sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 21h to 5 years, to run consecutively to his existing sentence of 25 years to life. Upon a motion filed by defendant in March 2001 pursuant to CPL 460.30, this Court extended defendant’s time to file a notice of appeal until May 7, 2001. However, a notice of appeal was not filed in accordance with that order. Approximately eight years later, defendant again moved this Court for additional time to take his appeal claiming, among other things, that his circumstances while incarcerated had prevented him from being able to file a notice of appeal. Ultimately, this Court denied that motion (2009 NY Slip Op 73109[U]).

Defendant thereafter brought an application in County Court to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL article 440. In an at[1061]*1061tempt to reinstate defendant’s time to take a direct appeal from his conviction, County Court vacated defendant’s sentence thereon and resentenced him to the identical sentence that was originally imposed, implicitly denying his CPL article 440 application.1 Defendant now appeals from the resentence,2 and we affirm.

In his counsel’s brief, as well as his pro se brief, defendant advances various challenges to the underlying conviction, but none as to the resentence. It is axiomatic that, “when a resentence occurs more than thirty days after the original sentence, a defendant who has not previously filed a notice of appeal from the judgment may not appeal from the judgment, but only from the resentence” (CPL 450.30 [3]; see People v Syville, 15 NY3d 391, 399 [2010]; People v McBryde, 96 AD3d 1085, 1086 [2012]). Thus, the claims asserted by defendant with respect to his underlying conviction are not properly before us (see CPL 450.30 [3]; People v Jordan, 16 NY3d 845, 846 [2011]; People v McBryde, 96 AD3d at 1086).3

Rose, J.R, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

People v. Syville
938 N.E.2d 910 (New York Court of Appeals, 2010)
People v. Jordan
947 N.E.2d 153 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Montgomery
247 N.E.2d 130 (New York Court of Appeals, 1969)
People v. McBryde
96 A.D.3d 1085 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 A.D.3d 1060, 976 N.Y.S.2d 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-henriquez-nyappdiv-2013.