| People v Covington |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07135 [88 AD3d 486] |
| October 11, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronnie Covington, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John B.F. Martin of counsel), forrespondent.
Order and judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D.Carruthers, J.), entered on or about October 30, 2008, which, to the extent appealable, reimposeddefendant's original prison sentence without imposing a period of postrelease supervision,unanimously affirmed.
We assume, without deciding, that this appeal is properly before us as an appeal from ajudgment of resentence (see CPL 450.30 [3]; People v King, 84 AD3d 473 [2011]), and we find it unnecessary todecide the appealability issues raised by the People. However, defendant is not entitled to anyrelief.
Defendant's original sentence on his underlying conviction unlawfully omitted the requiredperiod of postrelease supervision. Following postconviction motion practice and the Court ofAppeals' decision in People vSparber (10 NY3d 457 [2008]), the sentencing court determined that it would let theoriginal sentence stand, without adding PRS. However, the court did not employ the procedureset forth in Penal Law § 70.85, whereby, with the People's consent, the court may correct aSparber error by reimposing the original sentence without PRS.
Defendant seeks a remand for a resentencing hearing, arguing that the resentencing, orpurported resentencing, was procedurally defective in various respects. However, defendant wasnot adversely affected by any error, because the result, i.e., freedom from having to serve a termof PRS, was in his favor (see CPL 470.15 [1]; People v Acevedo, 17 NY3d 297, 302-303 [2011]).
In any event, defendant would not derive any practical benefit from a remand. To the extentthat defendant seeks a proceeding at which he may ask the resentencing court for a lower prisonsentence, that avenue of relief is foreclosed by the Court of Appeals' decision in People v Lingle (16 NY3d 621,634-635 [2011]). This Court likewise has no authority to revisit defendant's prison sentence onthis appeal (id. at 635). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Moskowitzand Abdus-Salaam, JJ.