Opinion
12-23-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dean MANOR, Also Known as Dean McLean, Also Known as Dean McLane, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Cara A. Waldman of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Cara A. Waldman of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, WHALEN, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:On defendant's prior appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of, inter alia, murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1] ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (former § 265.03[2] ), we modified the judgment by directing that the sentence on the criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree count run concurrently with the sentence on the murder count (People v. Manor, 38 A.D.3d 1257, 832 N.Y.S.2d 341, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 847, 840 N.Y.S.2d 774, 872 N.E.2d 887 ). Defendant now appeals from a resentence imposing terms of postrelease supervision with respect to that conviction.
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the gap of approximately 10 years between his original sentence and his resentence "violated his statutory right to have his sentence pronounced ‘without unreasonable delay’ " (People v. Smikle, 112 A.D.3d 1357, 1358, 978 N.Y.S.2d 508, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1141, 983 N.Y.S.2d 500, 6 N.E.3d 619, quoting CPL 380.30[1] ; see People v. Woods, 122 A.D.3d 1400, 1401, 997 N.Y.S.2d 570, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1210, 16 N.Y.S.3d 532, 37 N.E.3d 1175 ). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[3][c] ). He also failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court was deprived of jurisdiction by its failure to comply with the time limits in Correction Law § 601–d. In any event, that contention is without merit. "The Court of Appeals has held that the failure to comply with the time requirements set forth in Correction Law § 601–d (4) does not constitute a jurisdictional defect depriving the court of the authority to correct an illegal sentence and to resentence a defendant to a term that includes a period of postrelease supervision" (People v. Langenbach, 106 A.D.3d 1338, 1338, 966 N.Y.S.2d 252, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1043, 972 N.Y.S.2d 541, 995 N.E.2d 857 ; see generally People v. Lingle, 16 N.Y.3d 621, 630–633, 926 N.Y.S.2d 4, 949 N.E.2d 952 ; People v. Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198, 217, 899 N.Y.S.2d 76, 925 N.E.2d 878, cert. denied 562 U.S. 947, 131 S.Ct. 125, 178 L.Ed.2d 242 ).
Contrary to defendant's additional contention, the court at resentencing did not further modify the sentence beyond the imposition of terms of postrelease supervision, and indeed it specifically directed that the sentence remained as modified by this Court on defendant's prior appeal.It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.