| People v Grice |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05848 [98 AD3d 755] |
| August 2, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Oscar S.Grice, Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jaime A. Douthat of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), rendered May20, 2011, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crime of robbery in thesecond degree.
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of the crime of robbery in the first degree. CountyCourt sentenced him as a second felony offender to 15 years in prison, followed by five years ofpostrelease supervision. On appeal, this Court reduced the conviction to robbery in the seconddegree and remitted the matter to County Court for resentencing (84 AD3d 1419 [2011], lvdenied 17 NY3d 806 [2011]). Upon remittal, County Court resentenced defendant to thesame sentence as originally imposed. Defendant appeals, contending that the resentence wasmotivated by vindictiveness for exercising his right to appeal.
Preliminarily, the People contend that defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellatereview. We disagree. To preserve an issue for appeal, a specific objection or "exception" is notmandated; rather, it "is sufficient if the party made his [or her] position with respect to the ruling. . . known to the court, or . . . either expressly or impliedly sought orrequested a particular ruling" (CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. CPLR 4017). At resentencing, defensecounsel argued that, since County Court initially sentenced defendant to a prison term near themiddle of the statutory range for his conviction of robbery in the first degree, it should likewisesentence defendant to a prison term in the middle of the statutory range for his conviction ofrobbery in the second degree. Defendant therefore made his position known to County Court[*2]prior to the resentence being imposed.
On the merits, we find no indication in the record that County Court acted vindictively inimposing the resentence, as opposed to relying on defendant's extensive criminal history (seePeople v Young, 94 NY2d 171, 180-181 [1999]; People v Lawrence, 44 AD3d 967 [2007], lv denied 10NY3d 841 [2008]).
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed.