| People v Chandler |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01028 [70 AD3d 1128] |
| February 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v TimothyChandler, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady, for respondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.),rendered February 13, 2009, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crimeof burglary in the second degree.
In April 2000, defendant was sentenced to a 10-year prison term following his conviction bya jury of burglary in the second degree, a class C violent felony (see Penal Law §70.02 [1] [b]). Although such sentence was required by law to include a period of postreleasesupervision (see Penal Law § 70.45 [1]), County Court (Eidens, J.) made nomention of such a period during sentencing. Consequently, in 2008, after defendant had beenreleased to parole supervision, the Division of Parole informed County Court that defendant wasa "designated person" within the meaning of Correction Law § 601-d. Pursuant to thatstatute, County Court resentenced defendant to 10 years in prison followed by five years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Under circumstances similar to those presented here, the Court of Appeals hasrecently held that the failure of a sentencing court to impose a mandatory period of postreleasesupervision is a procedural error that can be easily corrected at a resentencing hearing (see People v Sparber, 10 NY3d457, 471-472 [2008]). In response to that decision, the Legislature enacted Correction Law§ 601-d, which "provid[es] a procedural framework for the [*2]identification and resentencing of those defendants whoseconvictions required a mandatory [postrelease supervision] component that had not beenimposed by the sentencing court" (People v Hernandez, 59 AD3d 180, 181 [2009], lv granted12 NY3d 817 [2009]; accord People vThomas, 66 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2009]). Contrary to his assertion, defendant is a"designated person" within the meaning of that statute; he received a determinate sentence in2000 for which he remained under parole supervision, and neither the original sentencingminutes nor defendant's commitment order indicate the imposition of a postrelease supervisoryperiod (see Correction Law § 601-d [1]). Accordingly, County Court properlyresentenced defendant to the originally imposed 10-year prison term followed by five years ofpostrelease supervision (see People v Thomas, 66 AD3d at 1245).
We are similarly unpersuaded by defendant's claim that his resentencing subjected him todouble jeopardy. Indeed, "defendant could not have had a legitimate expectation in the finality ofa sentence that is manifestly contrary to law" (People v Hernandez, 59 AD3d at 181).Defendant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and are determined to be without merit.
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.