People v Trombley
2013 NY Slip Op 07218 [111 AD3d 984]
November 7, 2013
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 25, 2013


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v RickyTrombley, Appellant.

[*1]Brandon E. Boutelle, Public Defender, Elizabethtown (Angela Kelley ofcounsel), for appellant.

Kristy L. Sprague, District Attorney, Elizabethtown (Brian W. Felton of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Essex County (Meyer, J.), renderedOctober 4, 2012, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crime ofassault in the third degree and the traffic infraction of consumption or possession ofalcohol in a motor vehicle on a highway.

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of, among other things, assault in thesecond degree. County Court sentenced him, as a second violent felony offender, to anaggregate prison term of 6½ years to be followed by two years of postreleasesupervision. Defendant then pleaded guilty to a federal weapons offense and wassentenced to 21/3 years in prison, to run consecutively to the sentence uponthe assault conviction. This Court thereafter reduced the assault conviction to assault inthe third degree and remitted the matter for resentencing (97 AD3d 903 [2012]). CountyCourt resentenced defendant to a jail term of one year and directed that it runconsecutively to the federal sentence. Defendant now appeals.

The crux of defendant's argument on appeal is that the definite sentence imposedupon the assault conviction should have merged with and been satisfied by thedeterminate sentence imposed upon the federal weapons charge (citing Penal Law§ 70.35). The record reflects, however, that defendant had been in custody for overone year at the time he was resentenced and, therefore, had served the resentence in full(see Penal Law § 70.30 [3]). Inasmuch as defendant fails to articulate whatimpact the resentence could now have upon his federal sentence [*2]or any other collateral legal issue, the present appeal ismoot (cf. People v Amma,95 AD3d 1561, 1562 [2012]). Finally, we are unpersuaded that this case falls withinthe exception to the mootness doctrine.

Stein, J.P., McCarthy, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal isdismissed, as moot.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.