| People v Walker |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07716 [100 AD3d 1149] |
| November 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William M.Walker, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Tracey Brunecz of counsel), forrespondent.
Kavanagh, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Tomlinson, J.), rendered June 10, 2011, which resentenced defendant following his convictionof the crimes of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminalmischief in the fourth degree and petit larceny.
In 2002, defendant was convicted following a jury trial of burglary in the second degree,grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and petit larceny. Hewas sentenced as a second felony offender to 14 years in prison on the burglary conviction and toconcurrent lesser terms of incarceration on the other convictions. In April 2011, the Departmentof Corrections and Community Supervision advised County Court that a mandatory period ofpostrelease supervision had not been imposed at the time that defendant was sentenced and thathe was a "designated person" under Correction Law § 601-d for purposes of resentencing.Following a June 2011 resentencing hearing, County Court resentenced defendant to the originalterm of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant nowappeals.
Defendant contends that County Court was without jurisdiction to resentence him because itfailed to comply with the time requirements set forth in Correction Law § 601-d (4). [*2]The Court of Appeals, however, has ruled that such defects are notjurisdictional in nature and do not deprive a court of the authority to correct an illegal sentenceand resentence a defendant to a term of incarceration that includes a period of postreleasesupervision (People v Velez, 19NY3d 642, 647-648 [2012]). This Court's decisions are consistent, upholding a court'sinherent authority to correct an illegal sentence notwithstanding the failure to comply with thetime limits set forth in Correction Law § 601-d (4) (c) or (d) (see People v Campbell, 93 AD3d996, 997 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]; People v Landmesser, 93 AD3d 999 [2012], lv denied 19NY3d 864 [2012]; People v Jones,93 AD3d 999, 1000 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 962 [2012]; People v Becker, 72 AD3d 1290,1291 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 747 [2010]). As we find no reason to depart from theforegoing precedent, County Court's judgment must be affirmed.
Mercure, J.P., Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.