| People v Bowman |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06255 [65 AD3d 636] |
| August 18, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert Bowman, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubortof counsel; Caroline Bishop on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.),imposed March 14, 2007, upon his conviction of robbery in the second degree (two counts),upon a jury verdict.
Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion in denying his request, at the resentencing proceeding, for an updated presentencereport and an adjournment to allow defense counsel to prepare a sentencing memorandum. Thecourt directed that the defendant be resentenced solely for purpose of correcting its proceduralerror in failing to pronounce the postrelease supervision (hereinafter PRS) component of hissentence (see People v Sparber, 10NY3d 457, 472 [2008]), and the defendant's previously adjudicated status as a secondviolent felony offender mandated the imposition of a five-year period of PRS (see PenalLaw § 70.45 [2]). The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have grantedhis request assumes that the resentencing court should have exercised discretion to reconsider thepropriety of the originally-imposed term of imprisonment in view of the fact that the sentencewould now include a period of PRS. However, since the defendant has not overcome thepresumption that the original sentencing court was aware that the sentence would include aperiod of PRS, no such exercise of discretion was warranted in this case (see People v Stewartson, 63 AD3d966 [2009]). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Fisher and Eng, JJ., concur.