From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hill

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 10, 2016
139 A.D.3d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

3850/11, 615/13, 335/13, 1113B, 3890/13, 1113A, 1113, 1112.

05-10-2016

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Desean HILL, Defendant–Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Barbara Zolot of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Eric C. Washer of counsel), respondent.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Barbara Zolot of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Eric C. Washer of counsel), respondent.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, KAPNICK, GESMER, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Troy K. Webber, J.), rendered January 24, 2014, as amended August 5, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 years, with 5 years' postrelease supervision, and judgments, same court (Steven L. Barrett, J.), rendered April 9, 2014, convicting him, upon his pleas of guilty, of burglary in the second degree, promoting prostitution in the second degree, and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 6 years, with 5 years' postrelease supervision, consecutive to the sentence on the robbery conviction, unanimously affirmed.

On separate dates, defendant pleaded guilty to two felonies that carried terms of postrelease supervision. Although the prison terms for these felonies run consecutively, the PRS terms merge into a single term of five years by operation of law (see Penal Law § 70.45[5][c] ). Therefore, since it is undisputed that, as to one of these pleas, defendant was properly warned that his sentence would include a five-year PRS term, defendant was not prejudiced by the lack of a warning, at the time of the first plea, that such a term would be part of his sentence in the event that he violated his plea agreement. Thus, defendant was never subject to PRS solely as a consequence of the plea that lacked the warning required by (People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081 [2005] ), and there is now no reason to vacate the plea (cf. People v. Ferrell, 76 A.D.3d 938, 907 N.Y.S.2d 866 [1st Dept.2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 952, 917 N.Y.S.2d 112, 942 N.E.2d 323 [2010] [defendant pleading guilty to murder and other crimes not prejudiced by lack of information about additional sentences that merged into life term] ).

Although we find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for any reduction of sentence.


Summaries of

People v. Hill

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 10, 2016
139 A.D.3d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Desean HILL…

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

Date published: May 10, 2016

Citations

139 A.D.3d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
139 A.D.3d 468
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3675