Soriano v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Soriano v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

21 A.D.3d 1233, 801 N.Y.S.2d 847

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 1233 (Soriano v. New York State Department of Correctional Services) 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

Soriano v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 21 A.D.3d 1233, 801 N.Y.S.2d 847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Sheridan, J.), entered November 8, 2004 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent calculating the length of petitioner’s sentence.

In February 1995, petitioner was convicted of robbery in the [1234]*1234first degree and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of dVs to 13 years. Petitioner was released in February 2000 to parole supervision. In December 2000, petitioner was arrested and later convicted of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. Petitioner was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to a prison term of 17 years.

Petitioner argues that, because the sentencing court was silent as to whether the 17-year sentence for manslaughter was to run consecutively or concurrently with the undischarged portion of the previous sentence for robbery, it must run concurrently. We disagree. Notwithstanding the sentencing court’s failure to indicate as much, Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a) requires that petitioner’s present 17-year sentence, imposed pursuant to Penal Law § 70.04, be served consecutively to his previous undischarged sentence (see Matter of Tineo v New York State Div. of Parole, 14 AD3d 949, 950 [2005]; Matter of Parrilla v Goord, 274 AD2d 820, 821 [2000]; Matter of Forman v Potempa, 261 AD2d 671, 671 [1999]).

Crew III, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Sheridan, J.), entered November 8, 2004 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent calculating the length of petitioner’s sentence.

In February 1995, petitioner was convicted of robbery in the [1234]*1234first degree and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of dVs to 13 years. Petitioner was released in February 2000 to parole supervision. In December 2000, petitioner was arrested and later convicted of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. Petitioner was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to a prison term of 17 years.

Petitioner argues that, because the sentencing court was silent as to whether the 17-year sentence for manslaughter was to run consecutively or concurrently with the undischarged portion of the previous sentence for robbery, it must run concurrently. We disagree. Notwithstanding the sentencing court’s failure to indicate as much, Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a) requires that petitioner’s present 17-year sentence, imposed pursuant to Penal Law § 70.04, be served consecutively to his previous undischarged sentence (see Matter of Tineo v New York State Div. of Parole, 14 AD3d 949, 950 [2005]; Matter of Parrilla v Goord, 274 AD2d 820, 821 [2000]; Matter of Forman v Potempa, 261 AD2d 671, 671 [1999]).

Crew III, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 1233, 801 N.Y.S.2d 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soriano-v-new-york-state-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack