People v. Lingle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lingle

66 A.D.2d 582, 886 N.Y.S.2d 601

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 582 (People v. Lingle) 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. Lingle, 66 A.D.2d 582, 886 N.Y.S.2d 601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered June 27, 2008, resentencing defendant, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 14 years and 31h to 7 years with five years’ postrélease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly resentenced defendant to comply with the requirement that a term of postrelease supervision be part of the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. Defendant’s challenges to his resentencing are similar to arguments rejected by this Court in People v Hernandez (59 AD3d 180 [2009], lv granted 12 NY3d 817 [2009]). In addition, since defendant was resentenced while still serving his prison sentence, his claim that he had a legitimate expectation of finality in his original defective sentence is even weaker than the argument made in [583]*583Hernandez. We also note that defendant was one of the defendants in People v Sparber (10 NY3d 457 [2008]), and his resentencing for the purpose of orally imposing postrelease supervision was expressly mandated by the Court of Appeals.

To the extent defendant is requesting a reduction of his prison sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, we find that request both procedurally improper on the present appeal and without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered June 27, 2008, resentencing defendant, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 14 years and 31h to 7 years with five years’ postrélease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly resentenced defendant to comply with the requirement that a term of postrelease supervision be part of the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. Defendant’s challenges to his resentencing are similar to arguments rejected by this Court in People v Hernandez (59 AD3d 180 [2009], lv granted 12 NY3d 817 [2009]). In addition, since defendant was resentenced while still serving his prison sentence, his claim that he had a legitimate expectation of finality in his original defective sentence is even weaker than the argument made in [583]*583Hernandez. We also note that defendant was one of the defendants in People v Sparber (10 NY3d 457 [2008]), and his resentencing for the purpose of orally imposing postrelease supervision was expressly mandated by the Court of Appeals.

To the extent defendant is requesting a reduction of his prison sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, we find that request both procedurally improper on the present appeal and without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 582, 886 N.Y.S.2d 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lingle-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack