Opinion
03-24-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Noel R. RIVERA, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (David R. Juergens of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Daniel Gross of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (David R. Juergens of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Daniel Gross of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND NEMOYER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1] ) and two counts of burglary in the first degree (§ 140.30[2], [3] ). Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 15 years to life for murder, to be served concurrently with determinate terms of 15 years imposed on the burglary counts. With respect to the burglary counts, defendant was also sentenced to five-year periods of postrelease supervision (PRS).
We agree with defendant that Supreme Court breached its obligation to advise him, at the time of the plea, that the sentences imposed upon his conviction of two counts of burglary would include periods of PRS (see People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 244–245, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081 ). In these circumstances, however, we conclude that reversal of the judgment of conviction and vacatur of the plea are not required (cf. id. at 245, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081 ; People v. Corsaro, 128 A.D.3d 1538, 1538, 7 N.Y.S.3d 924 ). Because "defendant is subject to ‘lifetime parole supervision, the imposition of postrelease supervision following his imprisonment for [burglary] is duplicative and does not deprive him of the benefit of his plea bargain’ " (People v. Gillard, 126 A.D.3d 1285, 1286, 4 N.Y.S.3d 794, quoting People v. Haynes, 14 A.D.3d 789, 791, 788 N.Y.S.2d 469, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 831, 796 N.Y.S.2d 586, 829 N.E.2d 679 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.