People v. Killiebrew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Killiebrew

63 A.D.3d 1088, 880 N.Y.S.2d 564

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 23, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), imposed December 10, 2007, upon his conviction of assault in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the resentencing court improperly failed to exercise its sentencing discretion to reconsider the sentence as a whole, in that the court should have considered whether the duration of the terms of imprisonment originally imposed on his conviction of assault in the first degree and burglary in the first degree were still appropriate in light of the fact that periods of postrelease supervision would be imposed. [1089]*1089The defendant’s contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-316 [2004]; People v Marshall, 228 AD2d 15, 17-18 [1997]; cf. People v D’Avila, 21 AD3d 905 [2005]; People v McHale, 165 AD2d 800 [1990]), and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Stewartson, 63 AD3d 966 [2d Dept 2009]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.E, Covello, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 33794(11).]

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

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), imposed December 10, 2007, upon his conviction of assault in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the resentencing court improperly failed to exercise its sentencing discretion to reconsider the sentence as a whole, in that the court should have considered whether the duration of the terms of imprisonment originally imposed on his conviction of assault in the first degree and burglary in the first degree were still appropriate in light of the fact that periods of postrelease supervision would be imposed. [1089]*1089The defendant’s contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-316 [2004]; People v Marshall, 228 AD2d 15, 17-18 [1997]; cf. People v D’Avila, 21 AD3d 905 [2005]; People v McHale, 165 AD2d 800 [1990]), and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Stewartson, 63 AD3d 966 [2d Dept 2009]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.E, Covello, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 33794(11).]

People v. Killiebrew, 63 A.D.3d 1088, 880 N.Y.S.2d 564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

63 A.D.3d 1088 (People v. Killiebrew) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related