| People v Jones |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01843 [93 AD3d 999] |
| March 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marlon E.Jones, Appellant. |
—[*1] P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered April 29,2011 in Albany County, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crimes ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourthdegree.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the crimes of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degreeand criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (People v Jones,301 AD2d 678 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 616 [2003]). He was sentenced, as a secondfelony offender, to concurrent indeterminate sentences for the drug possession counts, as well asa 14-year determinate sentence for the possession of a weapon count. Thereafter, it wasascertained that because Supreme Court failed to impose the statutorily-required period ofpostrelease supervision for defendant's determinate sentence, he was a "designated person"pursuant to Correction Law § 601-d (1) for purposes of resentencing. Defendant wasthereafter resentenced to the same prison terms for all convictions, with the addition of five yearsof postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. According to defendant, the resentencing must be vacated because the timerestrictions set forth in the Correction Law were not met herein. Supreme Court attributed the[*2]delay to difficulties in acquiring the transcript of the originalsentencing minutes due to the court reporter's retirement. While it is undisputed that defendantwas not resentenced within the time frame set forth in the statute, it is nonetheless evident that "'New York courts have the inherent authority to correct illegal sentences' " (People v Becker, 72 AD3d 1290,1291 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 747 [2010], quoting People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198, 217 [2010]). Accordingly, thefailure to comply with the applicable time periods does not require reversal herein (seeid.; see also People v Savery, 90AD3d 1505, 1505 [2011]; People vThomas, 68 AD3d 514, 515 [2009]).
The remaining contentions advanced by defendant have been examined and found to beunpersuasive.
Mercure, A.P.J., Lahtinen, Spain and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.