| People v Norris |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09155 [90 AD3d 788] |
| December 13, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v TyrellNorris, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, andMaria Park of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.),dated September 24, 2010, which, after a hearing, specified and informed him that the courtwould impose determinate terms of imprisonment of seven years to run consecutively to eachother, followed by a three-year period of postrelease supervision, in the event of a resentencepursuant to CPL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the thirddegree (two counts).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, KingsCounty, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 (hereinafter the2009 DLRA), codified in CPL 440.46, does not authorize the Supreme Court to alter thesentences for multiple felony drug convictions, originally imposed to run consecutively to eachother, such that they run concurrently with each other (see People v Acevedo, 14 NY3d 828, 830-831 [2010]; People v Vaughan, 62 AD3d 122,128-129 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly determined that it had no authority todirect that the proposed resentencing, pursuant to the 2009 DLRA, of the three felony drugconvictions, run concurrently with each other.
Further, the proposed resentence of a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years foreach conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, to be followed by athree-year period of postrelease supervision, was not excessive (see People v Medina, 81 AD3d853, 854 [2011]; People vNewton, 48 AD3d 115, 120 [2007]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Inlight of the defendant's disciplinary history while incarcerated, which includes 22 disciplinarycitations, his criminal history, and his significant role in the conspiracy to control an illegalnarcotics trade in a Brooklyn public housing project, which led to the instant convictions, afurther reduction of the defendant's sentence was not warranted (see People v Feliciano, 84 AD3d1113 [2011]; People v Medina, 81 AD3d at 854; People v Newton, 48 AD3dat 120; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
Pursuant to the 2009 DLRA, we remit this matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, toafford the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his application for resentencing before [*2]any resentence is imposed (see CPL 440.46 [3]; L 2004, ch738, § 23; People v Overton,86 AD3d 4, 17 [2011]; People vWilliams, 84 AD3d 1279, 1281 [2011]). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ.,concur.