Opinion
2013-01-8
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marche JOHNSON, Appellant.
Adam H. Van Buskirk, Aurora, for appellant. Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Christopher T. Valdina of counsel), for respondent.
Adam H. Van Buskirk, Aurora, for appellant. Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Christopher T. Valdina of counsel), for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The Appellate Division correctly held that the resentencing court's error in allowing defendant to proceed pro se was harmless in these narrow circumstances, where the proceeding involved a single question of law and standby counsel argued that issue on defendant's behalf ( see People v. Wardlaw, 6 N.Y.3d 556, 559, 816 N.Y.S.2d 399, 849 N.E.2d 258 [2006];People v. Adams, 52 A.D.3d 243, 243–244, 859 N.Y.S.2d 170 [1st Dept.2008] ).
Defendant's argument that the People were not entitled to withdraw their consent to a resentence without a period of post-release supervision (PRS) should be rejected ( seePenal Law § 70.85). After the consent was given, defendant requested an adjournment and the court informed him that it was holding its resentencing decision “in abeyance.” The People were under no continuing obligation to consent to a resentence that did not include PRS. When the People withdrew their consent, the resentencing court was compelled to impose PRS in accordance with Penal Law § 70.45 (see People v. Sparber, 10 N.Y.3d 457, 471–472, 859 N.Y.S.2d 582, 889 N.E.2d 459 [2008] ). Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH and PIGOTT concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.