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, etc., respondent, v. Mark DELL, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), imposed October 25, 2007, upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict.
ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.
In 2002 the defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, and was sentenced to two consecutive 17-year prison terms, which sentence was modified by this Court on appeal to run concurrently (see People v. Dell, 11 A.D.3d 631, 784 N.Y.S.2d 114). Neither the sentencing minutes nor the order of commitment mentioned any period of postrelease supervision (hereinafter PRS).
In 2007, after the Department of Correctional Services administratively added a 5-year period of PRS to his sentence, the defendant moved, pursuant to CPL 440.20, to vacate his sentence. The Supreme Court Justice who had presided at the defendant's trial and imposed the original sentence granted the motion to the extent of directing a resentencing proceeding. At that proceeding, the same Justice denied the defendant's request to be resentenced to concurrent 12-year terms of imprisonment and a 5-year period of PRS, and instead resentenced the defendant to two concurrent 17-year terms of imprisonment, in accordance with this Court's decision and order on the prior appeal, plus a 2 1/2-year period of PRS.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the resentencing court failed to exercise its discretion to consider whether the sentence as a whole was appropriate in view of the fact that the sentence would now include a period of PRS (see People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 437 N.Y.S.2d 961, 419 N.E.2d 864). To the contrary, the record establishes that the resentencing court rejected the defendant's proposed resentence and determined, in the exercise of its discretion, that even with the addition of a period of PRS, concurrent 17-year terms of imprisonment remained appropriate.
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: December 01, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)