From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bowen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 23, 2010
76 A.D.3d 1124 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 507674.

September 23, 2010.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Nolan, Jr., J.), entered March 5, 2009 in Saratoga County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Cal E. Gordon, Ray Brook, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ.


In 2003, petitioner was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 2 to 4 years upon his conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. The underlying sentence and commitment order made no mention of the manner in which this sentence was to run relative to petitioner's prior undischarged prison terms. Respondent Department of Correctional Services treated petitioner's 2003 sentence as running consecutively to his prior undischarged terms, prompting petitioner to commence this habeas corpus proceeding to challenge that computation and the legality of his continued incarceration. Supreme Court granted respondents' subsequent motion to dismiss and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. Where a sentencing court is mandated by statute to impose a consecutive sentence, it is deemed to have imposed the consecutive sentence required by law — notwithstanding the court's silence on this point ( see People ex rel. Gill v Greene, 12 NY3d 1, 4, cert denied sub nom. Gill v Rock, 558 US ___, 130 S Ct 86; Matter of Hayes v Fischer, 73 AD3d 1305, 1305-1306; Matter of Rivera v Taylor, 71 AD3d 1353). Inasmuch as petitioner was sentenced in 2003 as a second felony offender and, hence, was subject to the consecutive sentencing provisions of Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a), we discern no error in the computation of his sentence ( see Matter of Avent v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1145, 1146). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his assertion that respondents' return was untimely, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

People v. Bowen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 23, 2010
76 A.D.3d 1124 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

People v. Bowen

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. CAL E. GORDON, Appellant, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 23, 2010

Citations

76 A.D.3d 1124 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 6670
907 N.Y.S.2d 703