Williams v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Goord

25 A.D.3d 838, 805 N.Y.S.2d 859

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 838 (Williams v. Goord) 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

Williams v. Goord, 25 A.D.3d 838, 805 N.Y.S.2d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cannizzaro, J.), entered March 16, 2005 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.

Fetitioner was convicted in September 1990 of attempted robbery in the second degree and sentenced to a prison term of 2V2 to 5 years. In June 1995, petitioner was released to parole supervision. Thereafter, in July 1997, petitioner again was convicted of attempted robbery in the second degree and sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender to a prison term of 12 years to life. Fetitioner contends that because the sentencing court was silent as to whether the 1997 sentence was to run consecutive to the undischarged portion of the 1990 sentence, Penal Law § 70.25 (1) (a) requires that it must run concurrent. We disagree. Notwithstanding the sentencing court’s silence in that regard, Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a) requires that petitioner’s 1997 sentence, imposed pursuant to Penal Law § 70.08, run consecutive to his prior undischarged sentence (see Matter of Soriano v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 21 AD3d 1233 [2005]; Matter of Tineo v New York State Div. of Parole, 14 AD3d 949, 950 [2005]).

[839]*839Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and. Lahtinen, 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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cannizzaro, J.), entered March 16, 2005 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.

Fetitioner was convicted in September 1990 of attempted robbery in the second degree and sentenced to a prison term of 2V2 to 5 years. In June 1995, petitioner was released to parole supervision. Thereafter, in July 1997, petitioner again was convicted of attempted robbery in the second degree and sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender to a prison term of 12 years to life. Fetitioner contends that because the sentencing court was silent as to whether the 1997 sentence was to run consecutive to the undischarged portion of the 1990 sentence, Penal Law § 70.25 (1) (a) requires that it must run concurrent. We disagree. Notwithstanding the sentencing court’s silence in that regard, Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a) requires that petitioner’s 1997 sentence, imposed pursuant to Penal Law § 70.08, run consecutive to his prior undischarged sentence (see Matter of Soriano v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 21 AD3d 1233 [2005]; Matter of Tineo v New York State Div. of Parole, 14 AD3d 949, 950 [2005]).

[839]*839Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and. Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 838, 805 N.Y.S.2d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-goord-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack