Summary
In Lingle, the Appellate Division considered whether Lingle's request for a reduction in the incarceratory portion of his sentence should be granted "as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice" but found such request to be "without merit" (People v Lingle, 66 AD3d 582, 583 [1st Dept 2009]).
Summary of this case from People v. LingleOpinion
No. 1290.
October 27, 2009.
Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered June 27, 2008, resentencing defendant, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 14 years and 3 1½ to 7 years with five years' postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Barbara Zolot of counsel), for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
The court properly resentenced defendant to comply with the requirement that a term of postrelease supervision be part of the court's oral pronouncement of sentence. Defendant's challenges to his resentencing are similar to arguments rejected by this Court in People v Hernandez ( 59 AD3d 180, Iv granted 12 NY3d 817). In addition, since defendant was resentenced while still serving his prison sentence, his claim that he had a legitimate expectation of finality in his original defective sentence is even weaker than the argument made in Hernandez. We also note that defendant was one of the defendants in People v Sparber ( 10 NY3d 457), and his resentencing for the purpose of orally imposing postrelease supervision was expressly mandated by the Court of Appeals.
To the extent defendant is requesting a reduction of his prison sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, we find that request both procedurally improper on the present appeal and without merit.