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.
IN RE: Kevin SMILEY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDonough, J.), entered July 16, 2007 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent imposing a period of postrelease supervision upon petitioner.
In July 2002, petitioner pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree, a class C violent felony (see Penal Law § 70.02[1][b] ), and received the agreed-upon sentence of seven years in prison. Neither the sentencing minutes nor the commitment order made mention of the mandatory period of postrelease supervision to be imposed (see Penal Law § 70.45[1], [2][f] ). Respondent, however, included a five-year period of postrelease supervision in petitioner's sentence calculation. Following unsuccessful administrative attempts to remedy this alleged error, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent's determination. Supreme Court, following extant case law, dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
We reverse. As the most recent cases from this Court and the Court of Appeals make clear, only the sentencing judge is authorized to impose a period of postrelease supervision (see Matter of Garner v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 10 N.Y.3d 358 [2008]; Matter of Donhauser v. Goord, 48 A.D.3d 1005, 852 N.Y.S.2d 474 [2008]; Matter of Quinones v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 46 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 848 N.Y.S.2d 757 [2007]; Matter of Dreher v. Goord, 46 A.D.3d 1261, 1262, 848 N.Y.S.2d 758 [2007] ). Thus, respondent was without authority to impose a five-year period of postrelease supervision upon petitioner (see id.). To the extent that our prior decisions have held to the contrary (see Matter of Garner v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 39 A.D.3d 1019, 831 N.Y.S.2d 923 [2007], revd. 10 N.Y.3d 358 [2008]; Matter of Deal v. Goord, 8 A.D.3d 769, 778 N.Y.S.2d 319 [2004], appeal dismissed 3 N.Y.3d 737, 786 N.Y.S.2d 814, 820 N.E.2d 293 [2004] ), they no longer should be followed.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition granted.
PETERS, J.
CARDONA, P.J., CARPINELLO, ROSE and MALONE JR., JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
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 12, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)