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: Harry TUCKER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.), entered November 18, 2008 in Ulster County, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of respondent calculating petitioner's prison sentence.
In January 2006, petitioner was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 13 years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, upon his conviction of burglary in the second degree. Neither the sentence and commitment order nor the sentencing minutes specified whether this sentence was to run consecutively to or concurrently with petitioner's prior undischarged prison term. Respondent treated petitioner's 2006 sentence as running consecutively to his prior undischarged term, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge that computation. Supreme Court annulled respondent's determination and this appeal ensued.
Where a statute mandates the imposition of a consecutive sentence, the sentencing court is deemed to have imposed the consecutive sentence the law requires-even in the absence of an express judicial pronouncement to that effect (see People ex rel. Gill v. Greene, 12 N.Y.3d 1, 4, 875 N.Y.S.2d 826, 903 N.E.2d 1146 [2009]; People ex rel. Gathers v. Artus, 63 A.D.3d 1435, 1436, 880 N.Y.S.2d 586 [2009]; People ex rel. Hunter v. Yelich, 63 A.D.3d 1424, 1425, 880 N.Y.S.2d 584 [2009]; People ex rel. Styles v. Rabsatt, 63 A.D.3d 1365, 1366, 879 N.Y.S.2d 735 [2009] ). As there is no dispute that petitioner was subject to the consecutive sentencing provisions of Penal Law § 70.25(2-a)-indeed, he concedes this point-we discern no error in respondent's computation of his sentence (see Matter of Grey v. Fischer, 63 A.D.3d 1431, 1432, 882 N.Y.S.2d 322 [2009]; People ex rel. Taylor v. Brown, 62 A.D.3d 1063, 1064, 877 N.Y.S.2d 707 [2009] ). Accordingly, Supreme Court's judgment is reversed and the petition is dismissed.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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: October 08, 2009
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)