| People v Dallas |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04620 [107 AD3d 912] |
| June 19, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Karl Dallas, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County(Greller, J.), rendered December 1, 2011, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest ofjustice, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, andthe matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings inaccordance herewith.
The defendant's argument that the County Court misapprehended, and therefore,failed to impose, the promised period of postrelease supervision is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). However, we reach the issue in theexercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Since the County Court misapprehended,and therefore, failed to impose, the promised period of postrelease supervision, we vacatethe sentence and remit the matter to the County Court, Dutchess County, to allow thecourt to (1) impose the promised sentence, consisting of a term of imprisonment of3½ years and a period of postrelease supervision of 1½ years, (2) afford thedefendant the opportunity to accept the previously-imposed sentence, including theenhanced period of postrelease supervision, or, (3) in the absence of either of thoseresults, permit the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty (cf. People v Selikoff,35 NY2d 227 [1974]; People vSosa-Rodriguez, 63 AD3d 861 [2009]; People v Nash, 48 AD3d 705 [2008]). Skelos, J.P.,Chambers, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.