| People v Landmesser |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01842 [93 AD3d 999] |
| March 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ScottLandmesser, Appellant. |
—[*1] Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (John M. Tuppen of counsel), forrespondent.
Spain, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Buckley, J.),rendered April 4, 2011, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crime ofsodomy in the first degree.
In 1998, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 18 yearsupon his plea of guilty to the crime of sodomy in the first degree. In 2010, while defendant wasstill serving his prison term, he was identified as a "designated person" within the meaning ofCorrection Law § 601-d (1) because his sentence did not include a period of postreleasesupervision. Thereafter, County Court resentenced defendant to his original 18-year prison termand imposed a five-year period of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.
After a full review of the record, including the transcript of the proceedings held beforeCounty Court on April 4, 2011, we reject defendant's contention that the court lacked jurisdictionto resentence him. Inasmuch as defendant was still serving his initial prison term at the time ofresentencing, the court had the inherent authority to correct the illegality in the sentence (see People v Williams, 14 NY3d198, 217 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 125 [2010]; People v Becker, 72 AD3d 1290,1291 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 747 [2010]). Further, under [*2]these circumstances, Correction Law § 601-d "does notviolate the principles of due process, nor does the imposition of a period of postreleasesupervision that is required by law offend fundamental notions of fairness" (People v Thomas, 66 AD3d 1244,1245 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 806 [2010], appeal dismissed 14 NY3d 884[2010]). Finally, while the statutory time limits were not met here, the inherent authority tocorrect illegal sentences exists "regardless of the time limits set forth in Correction Law §601-d (4) (c) or (d)" (People v Becker, 72 AD3d at 1291; see People v Thomas, 68 AD3d514, 515 [2009]).
Mercure, A.P.J., Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.