Opinion
428 KA 19-00214
07-16-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Elijah CURTIS, Defendant-Appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (THOMAS M. LEITH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (THOMAS M. LEITH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree ( Penal Law § 220.16 [1] ). The People correctly concede that defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal (see People v. Clark , 178 A.D.3d 1409, 1410, 112 N.Y.S.3d 628 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1157, 120 N.Y.S.3d 267, 142 N.E.3d 1169 [2020] ; People v. Coats , 158 A.D.3d 1296, 1297, 68 N.Y.S.3d 374 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1080, 79 N.Y.S.3d 101, 103 N.E.3d 1248 [2018] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, however, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We are nevertheless "compelled to emphasize once again" that, contrary to the assertion in the People's brief, a criminal defendant need not show extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court in order to obtain a sentence reduction under CPL 470.15 (6) (b) ( People v. Cutaia , 167 A.D.3d 1534, 1535, 90 N.Y.S.3d 444 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 947, 100 N.Y.S.3d 195, 123 N.E.3d 854 [2019] ; see People v. Thomas , 194 A.D.3d 1405, 1406, 143 N.Y.S.3d 626 [4th Dept. 2021] ; People v. Kibler , 187 A.D.3d 1569, 1570, 133 N.Y.S.3d 149 [4th Dept. 2020] ). Finally, both the certificate of conviction and the uniform sentence and commitment form must be corrected to reflect County Court's imposition of a three-year, not a two-year, period of postrelease supervision on count one.