| People v Williams |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00904 [114 AD3d 993] |
| February 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vRobert L. Williams, Jr., Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.),rendered August 8, 2011, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of thecrime of burglary in the first degree.
In 2005, defendant was convicted of three counts of murder in the first degree andone count of burglary in the first degree and was thereafter sentenced to lifeimprisonment without the possibility of parole with respect to the murder convictions and25 years in prison for the burglary conviction, all to be served concurrently (45 AD3d905 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 818 [2008]). At that time, County Court failed toinclude statutorily required postrelease supervision with respect to the burglary in thefirst degree conviction. Accordingly, in 2011, the court resentenced defendant to 25 yearsin prison on this conviction, followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendantnow appeals.
We affirm. "Whether to obtain an updated presentence report is a matter restingwithin the discretion of the sentencing court" (People v Lakatosz, 89 AD3d 1329, 1330 [2011], lvdenied 18 NY3d 925 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; seePeople v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278, 282-283 [1994]). Here, defendant has beencontinuously incarcerated since the original sentence and was afforded an opportunity toaddress County Court at resentencing. Moreover, County Court presided over defendant'strial and noted during the resentencing [*2]proceedingsthat it imposed the underlying sentence herein. Under these circumstances, we find nobasis to conclude that the court abused its discretion regarding this issue (see Peoplev Lakatosz, 89 AD3d at 1330). Nor do we find any merit to defendant's claim that hewas denied the effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to request anupdated sentencing report (seePeople v Porter, 95 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1000[2012]).
McCarthy, J.P., Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.