From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec 21, 2012
101 A.D.3d 1677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-12-21

The PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent, v. Shamel X. SMITH, Defendant–Appellant.

Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Susan C. Azzarelli of Counsel), for Respondent.



Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Susan C. Azzarelli of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ) and four counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16[1] ). As part of the plea agreement, Supreme Court stated that it would sentence defendant to concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment with a one-year period of postrelease supervision. We agree with defendant that the court erred in enhancing the sentence by imposing a 1 1/2-year period of postrelease supervision that was not included in the plea agreement ( see generally People v. Pickett, 90 A.D.3d 1526, 1527, 935 N.Y.S.2d 758). Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review “because [he] did not object to the enhanced sentence, nor did he move to withdraw the appeal or to vacate the judgment of conviction” ( People v. Sprague, 82 A.D.3d 1649, 1649, 919 N.Y.S.2d 433,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 801, 929 N.Y.S.2d 110, 952 N.E.2d 1105), we nevertheless exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[6][a] ). We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the period of postrelease supervision to one year. As modified, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the period of postrelease supervision imposed on each count to a period of one year and as modified the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec 21, 2012
101 A.D.3d 1677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent, v. Shamel X. SMITH…

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

Date published: Dec 21, 2012

Citations

101 A.D.3d 1677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
101 A.D.3d 1677
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8956

Citing Cases

People v. Morrison

As part of the plea agreement, the court stated that, in exchange for his guilty plea, it would sentence…

People v. Morrison

As part of the plea agreement, the court stated that, in exchange for his guilty plea, it would sentence…