From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Branch

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 23, 2016
144 A.D.3d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

11-23-2016

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. PARADISE BRANCH, appellant.

Paul N. Weber, Jr., Cornwall, NY, for appellant. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (Andrew R. Kass of counsel; Mariah W. Dolce on the brief), for respondent.


Paul N. Weber, Jr., Cornwall, NY, for appellant.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (Andrew R. Kass of counsel; Mariah W. Dolce on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), imposed February 20, 2015, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty.

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

When the County Court originally imposed sentence in this case, it directed that the sentence be served concurrently with the defendant's undischarged sentence on an earlier conviction. However, because the defendant had committed the crime in this case after he was sentenced on the earlier conviction, the sentences were required to be served consecutively under Penal Law § 70.25(2–a). Upon being notified of its error, the court directed that the defendant be returned to court and, sua sponte, resentenced the defendant by deleting the provision that the sentences be served concurrently. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's resentencing was a proper exercise of its inherent power to correct an illegal sentence (see People v. Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198, 212, 899 N.Y.S.2d 76, 925 N.E.2d 878 ; People v. DeValle, 94 N.Y.2d 870, 872, 704 N.Y.S.2d 924, 726 N.E.2d 476 ). Since the court corrected the error before the defendant had a legitimate expectation of finality in the illegal sentence, the resentencing did not subject him to double jeopardy (see People v. Lingle, 16 N.Y.3d 621, 630, 926 N.Y.S.2d 4, 949 N.E.2d 952 ; People v. Dozier, 134 A.D.3d 951, 951, 20 N.Y.S.3d 900 ). Moreover, the defendant has not established that the resentence violated due process (see People v. Lingle, 16 N.Y.3d at 632–633, 926 N.Y.S.2d 4, 949 N.E.2d 952 ; People v. Dozier, 134 A.D.3d at 951, 20 N.Y.S.3d 900).

BALKIN, J.P., HALL, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Branch

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 23, 2016
144 A.D.3d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Branch

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. PARADISE BRANCH, appellant.

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

Date published: Nov 23, 2016

Citations

144 A.D.3d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 7974
40 N.Y.S.3d 909