From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tucker v. N.Y. State Dept. of Correc. Serv

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 8, 2009
66 A.D.3d 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 506724.

October 8, 2009.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.), entered November 18, 2008 in Ulster County, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of respondent calculating petitioner's prison sentence.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany.

(Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for appellant.

Before: Peters, J.P., Spain, Rose, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur.


In January 2006, petitioner was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 13 years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, upon his conviction of burglary in the second degree. Neither the sentence and commitment order nor the sentencing minutes specified whether this sentence was to run consecutively to or concurrently with petitioner's prior undischarged prison term. Respondent treated petitioner's 2006 sentence as running consecutively to his prior undischarged term, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge that computation. Supreme Court annulled respondent's determination and this appeal ensued.

Where a statute mandates the imposition of a consecutive sentence, the sentencing court is deemed to have imposed the consecutive sentence the law requires — even in the absence of an express judicial pronouncement to that effect ( see People ex rel. Gill v Greene, 12 NY3d 1, 4; People ex rel. Gathers v Artus, 63 AD3d 1435, 1436; People ex rel. Hunter v Yelich, 63 AD3d 1424, 1425; People ex rel. Styles v Rabsatt, 63 AD3d 1365, 1366). As there is no dispute that petitioner was subject to the consecutive sentencing provisions of Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a) — indeed, he concedes this point — we discern no error in respondent's computation of his sentence ( see Matter of Grey v Fischer, 63 AD3d 1431, 1432; People ex rel. Taylor v Brown, 62 AD3d 1063, 1064). Accordingly, Supreme Court's judgment is reversed and the petition is dismissed.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Tucker v. N.Y. State Dept. of Correc. Serv

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 8, 2009
66 A.D.3d 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Tucker v. N.Y. State Dept. of Correc. Serv

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HARRY TUCKER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Oct 8, 2009

Citations

66 A.D.3d 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7184
886 N.Y.S.2d 516

Citing Cases

Whitfield Rivera v. Taylor

Petitioner was sentenced in 1998 as a second felony offender and, therefore, was subject to the consecutive…

People v. David Rock

The crux of petitioner's argument is that the Department of Correctional Services erred in running his 1997…