| People v Mehmel |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06417 [98 AD3d 1256] |
| September 28, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter J.Mehmel, Appellant. |
—[*1] Lori Pettit Rieman, District Attorney, Little Valley (Kelly M. Balcom of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a resentence of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), renderedMay 31, 2011. Defendant was resentenced upon his conviction of robbery in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the seconddegree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]), and he appeals from a resentence imposing a periodof postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate term of incarceration originally imposed.The record establishes that, although County Court had advised defendant at the time of the pleathat the sentence would include a five-year period of postrelease supervision, the court neglectedto impose the period of postrelease supervision at the time of sentencing. As defendant correctlyconcedes, there is no double jeopardy violation with respect to the resentence because he is stillserving the sentence originally imposed (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-631 [2011]; cf. People v Williams, 14 NY3d198, 217-220 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 125 [2010]). Defendantcontends that the five-year period of postrelease supervision was illegal because there was anunreasonable delay between the date of the original sentence and that of the resentence, inviolation of CPL 380.30 (1) (see Williams, 14 NY3d at 213). We conclude, however, thatin resentencing defendant the court simply corrected the error it made at the time of the originalsentence and thus that the resentence was proper (see People v Sparber, 10 NY3d 457, 469 [2008]; see generally People v Howard, 96AD3d 1691, 1692 [2012]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers andMartoche, JJ.