People v. Taylor

89 A.D.3d 1116, 933 N.Y.2d 610
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 29, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46 on the ground that his status as a reincarcerated parole violator made him ineligible for relief under the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act, since “prisoners who have been paroled, and then reincarcerated for violating their parole, are not for that reason barred from seeking relief under the statute” (People v Paulin, 17 NY3d 238, 242 [2011]; see People v Vidal, 87 AD3d 1085 [2011]; People v Santiago, 87 AD3d 1077 [2011]; People v Howard, 85 AD3d 1202 [2011]).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion on the alternate ground that his release to parole after he applied for resentencing rendered him ineligible for that relief. Where, as here, the defendant applies for resentencing while still in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the defendant is not [1117]*1117rendered ineligible based upon a postapplication release to parole supervision (see People v Santiago, 17 NY3d 246 [2011]; People v McEachin, 87 AD3d 1165 [2011]; People v Wiggins, 84 AD3d 1279 [2011]).

Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the defendant’s motion. Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Taylor, 89 A.D.3d 1116, 933 N.Y.2d 610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 1116 (People v. Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Vaughn
130 A.D.3d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Lankford
35 Misc. 3d 418 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)