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. Stanley L. HOWARD, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)
Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06[5] ) and assault in the second degree (§ 120.05[7] ), and he appeals from a resentence on those convictions. County Court (Corning, J.) originally sentenced defendant as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment on the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance and a determinate term of imprisonment of five years on the conviction of assault, but it failed to impose a period of postrelease supervision (PRS) on the determinate sentence as required by Penal Law § 70.45(1). County Court (Leone, J.), with the People's consent, thereafter resentenced defendant to the same terms of imprisonment previously imposed, without adding a term of PRS (see § 70.85; see also Correction Law § 601–d).
To the extent that defendant challenges the severity of his resentence, that challenge is beyond the scope of our review. Where, as here, the resentence is conducted for the purpose of rectifying a Sparber error—that is, an error in failing to impose a required period of PRS (see People v. Sparber, 10 N.Y.3d 457, 464–465, 859 N.Y.S.2d 582, 889 N.E.2d 459)—“[t]he defendant's right to appeal is limited to the correction of errors or the abuse of discretion at the resentencing proceeding,” and this Court “may not reduce the [defendant's] prison sentence on appeal in the interest of justice” (People v. Lingle, 16 N.Y.3d 621, 635, 926 N.Y.S.2d 4, 949 N.E.2d 952; see People v. Covington, 88 A.D.3d 486, 486–487, 930 N.Y.S.2d 190, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 858, 938 N.Y.S.2d 865, 962 N.E.2d 290).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that, at resentencing, the People were required to re-prove his status as a second felony offender and the court (Leone, J.) was required to re-adjudicate him as such (see generally CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, that contention lacks merit. At defendant's original sentencing, the People and the court (Corning, J.) complied with the requirements of CPL 400.21, and defendant admitted his status as a second felony offender. Thus, we conclude that there was “substantial compliance” with CPL 400.21 at resentencing despite the court's failure to adjudicate defendant a second felony offender again (People v. Mateo, 53 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 861 N.Y.S.2d 904, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 791, 866 N.Y.S.2d 617, 896 N.E.2d 103).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it does not require reversal or modification of the resentence.
It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 29, 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)