Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. JASON M. MEDEN, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Niagara County Court for resentencing in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation previously imposed and convicting him of violating the terms and conditions of his probation. He was sentenced to a determinate term of incarceration of three years, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. We reject defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence, but we conclude that the sentence imposed is illegal and cannot stand despite the failure of either defendant or the People to raise the issue in County Court or on appeal (see People v. Davis, 37 AD3d 1179, 1180, lv denied 8 NY3d 983). Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the second degree, a class E felony and, although he was convicted of rape in the second degree in 2007, there is no indication in the record that he was adjudicated a second felony offender. Defendant therefore faced an indeterminate term of incarceration ranging from a minimum of 1 to 3 years to a maximum of 11/313 to 4 years (see Penal Law § 70.00[2][e]; [3][b] ). However, the court erroneously imposed a sentence of a determinate term of three years. The certificate of conviction correctly reflects that defendant was convicted of attempted assault in the second degree but it also reflects the illegal sentence. We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed, and we remit the matter to County Court for resentencing.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: KA 11–00975
Decided: June 08, 2012
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)