From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jackson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 3, 2011
89 A.D.3d 1122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-11-3

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Gregory JACKSON, Appellant.


Ralph Cherchian, Albany, for appellant.

Gwen Wilkinson, District Attorney, Ithaca (Gary Surdell of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., MALONE JR., KAVANAGH, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ.

KAVANAGH, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Rowley, J.), rendered November 26, 2008, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crimes of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree and petit larceny.

In March 2000, defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree and petit larceny, and was subsequently sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 8 1/2 years. His sentence did not include, as required, a period of postrelease supervision ( see Penal Law § 70.45 [1] ). Defendant's conviction was later affirmed (282 A.D.2d 830, 725 N.Y.S.2d 406 [2001], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 902, 730 N.Y.S.2d 800, 756 N.E.2d 88 [2001] ), and he was released from prison in March 2008, after he had served his entire sentence. Upon his release from prison, the People filed an application to have defendant resentenced so that he would be required to serve a mandatory term of postrelease supervision. In December 2008, County Court granted the People's request and defendant now appeals.

Defendant's challenge to County Court's decision to resentence him was filed after he served his entire sentence, including the period of postrelease supervision. As a result, his challenge to the validity of the resentence is moot and this appeal must be dismissed ( see People v. McLaine, 64 N.Y.2d 934, 488 N.Y.S.2d 648, 477 N.E.2d 1102 [1985]; People v. Facen, 67 A.D.3d 1478, 1479, 888 N.Y.S.2d 454 [2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 800, 899 N.Y.S.2d 134, 925 N.E.2d 938 [2010]; People v. John, 288 A.D.2d 848, 850, 732 N.Y.S.2d 505 [2001], lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 705, 739 N.Y.S.2d 106, 765 N.E.2d 309 [2002]; People v. De Leo, 214 A.D.2d 762, 762–763, 624 N.Y.S.2d 982 [1995] ).

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot.

MERCURE, J.P., MALONE JR., McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Jackson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 3, 2011
89 A.D.3d 1122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. Jackson

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Gregory JACKSON…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 3, 2011

Citations

89 A.D.3d 1122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
931 N.Y.S.2d 917
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7743

Citing Cases

People v. Alvarado

925 N.E.2d 878,cert. denied––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 125, 178 L.Ed.2d 242), and that the resentencing was in…