Opinion
2014-06-20
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tajaun PAUL, Defendant–Appellant.
Linda M. Campbell, Syracuse, for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.
Linda M. Campbell, Syracuse, for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, WHALEN AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a resentence that imposed various periods of postrelease supervision, defendant contends that County Court failed to comply with the prior order of this Court entered on defendant's appeal from the underlying judgment of conviction ( People v. Paul, 298 A.D.2d 849, 747 N.Y.S.2d 615,lv. denied99 N.Y.2d 562, 754 N.Y.S.2d 215, 784 N.E.2d 88). We agree. Defendant was convicted upon a jury verdict of crimes arising from two separate robberies, and the court sentenced him to concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment. On defendant's prior appeal, this Court concluded that the sentence imposed on the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was illegal to the extent that it was directed to run consecutively to the sentences imposed on counts 10 through 13 of the indictment, as renumbered by the court, for robbery in the first degree, and we modified the judgment accordingly ( id. at 850, 747 N.Y.S.2d 615). Following the appeal, the court was alerted to its failure at sentencing to impose periods of postrelease supervision ( seeCorrection Law § 601–d), as required by Penal Law § 70.45(1). Upon resentencing, the court added the requisite periods of postrelease supervision, but erroneously imposed the same concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment imposed in the original sentence. Contrary to defendant's contention, this Court has the authority to correct the resentence to the extent that it is illegal ( see People v. Rodriguez, 18 N.Y.3d 667, 671, 944 N.Y.S.2d 438, 967 N.E.2d 661;People v. LaSalle, 95 N.Y.2d 827, 829, 712 N.Y.S.2d 437, 734 N.E.2d 749), and we therefore modify the resentence accordingly.
It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by directing that the sentence imposed on the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree shall run concurrently with the sentences imposed on counts 10 through 13 of the indictment, as renumbered by County Court, and as modified the resentence is affirmed.