PEOPLE BURCH v. GOORD (2008)

On September 7, 2004, petitioner admitted to violating the terms of a sentence of probation imposed in Supreme Court, Bronx County, upon his conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree.   He was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of two years, but the court did not impose a period of postrelease supervision.   During petitioner's term of imprisonment, respondent, New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), added a three-year period of postrelease supervision to petitioner's sentence.   Petitioner was released from prison in May 2005, but in July 2005 he was declared delinquent by the Division of Parole and was returned to DOCS, where he remains imprisoned.

 Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he was being illegally detained beyond the maximum two-year term of imprisonment imposed by the court.   In denying the petition, Supreme Court relied in part on our decisions in People v. Hollenbach, 307 A.D.2d 776, 762 N.Y.S.2d 860, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 642, 769 N.Y.S.2d 208, 801 N.E.2d 429 and People v. Crump, 302 A.D.2d 901, 753 N.Y.S.2d 793, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 537, 763 N.Y.S.2d 2, 793 N.E.2d 416.   We reverse, however, because we agree with the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that, in the event that a court does not impose a period of postrelease supervision as part of a defendant's sentence, the sentence has no postrelease supervision component (Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71, 76, reh. denied 462 F.3d 147;  see People ex rel. Gerard [Colarusso] v. Kralik, 44 A.D.3d 804, 804-805, 843 N.Y.S.2d 398;  People v. Martinez, 40 A.D.3d 1012, 837 N.Y.S.2d 221;  see generally Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460, 464, 56 S.Ct. 760, 80 L.Ed. 1283).   As the Court of Appeals has stated, postrelease supervision is a “direct consequence of a criminal conviction” (People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 244, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081;  see People v. Louree, 8 N.Y.3d 541, 545, 838 N.Y.S.2d 18, 869 N.E.2d 18), and we conclude that it therefore must be expressly imposed by the court (see Earley, 451 F.3d at 76).   To the extent that our prior decisions in Hollenbach and Crump hold otherwise, they are no longer to be followed (see People ex rel. Eaddy v. Goord, 48 A.D.3d 1307, 855 N.Y.S.2d 314 [2008], 2008 WL 450391 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the writ of habeas corpus is sustained, and

It is further ORDERED that respondent is directed to discharge petitioner from custody forthwith.

MEMORANDUM: