Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Gauze

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

July 31, 2013

The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v.
Dwayne Gauze, appellant. (Ind. No. 1003/00)

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Brennan of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA HINDS-RADIX, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), imposed October 18, 2011, upon his conviction of murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, the resentence being a period of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed on May 8, 2001.

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, at the resentencing proceeding to correct a Sparber error (see People v Sparber, 10 N.Y.3d 457), the resentencing court had no discretion to reimpose the originally imposed determinate term of imprisonment without any term of postrelease supervision. While imposition of postrelease supervision is normally mandatory (see Penal Law §§ 70.00[6]; 70.45[2]; People v Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198, 206, cert denied ______ U.S. ______, 131 S.Ct. 125; People v Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 244), it is not mandatory where the People consent, upon reimposition of a defendant's sentence pursuant to Sparber, that there be no period of postrelease supervision (see Penal Law § 70.85). No such consent was given here. Furthermore, the defendant's resentencing to a term which included the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not violate his right to due process of law (see People v Lingle, 16 N.Y.3d 621, 630).

DILLON, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.