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. Arthur Pruitt, appellant.
Submitted-June 14, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.), imposed August 6, 2008, which, upon his conviction of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, imposed periods of postrelease supervision of five years in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on March 14, 2001.
ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. On March 14, 2001, he was sentenced to concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of 18 years and 7 years, respectively. In 2008, while the defendant was still incarcerated and serving the original sentence, the defendant was brought before the County Court for resentencing, so that the mandatory periods of postrelease supervision could be imposed (see Penal Law § 70.45; Correction Law § 601-d).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his constitutional right to due process was not violated by the resentencing (see People v. Sparber, 10 NY3d 457, 469-472; People v. Mendez, 73 AD3d 951; People v. Scalercio, 71 AD3d 1060).
The defendant's contention that Correction Law § 601-d constitutes an unconstitutional ex post facto law is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (cf. People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198, 220 n 5).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SKELOS, J.P., ENG, HALL and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
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: 2008-07752 (Ind.No. 2310 /99)
Decided: June 29, 2010
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)