From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gauze

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 31, 2013
108 A.D.3d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-07-31

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Dwayne GAUZE, appellant.

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.



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, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

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, 859 N.Y.S.2d 582, 889 N.E.2d 459), 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 ( seePenal Law §§ 70.00[6]; 70.45[2]; People v. Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198, 206, 899 N.Y.S.2d 76, 925 N.E.2d 878,cert. denied––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 125, 178 L.Ed.2d 242;People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 244, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081), 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 ( seePenal 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, 926 N.Y.S.2d 4, 949 N.E.2d 952).


Summaries of

People v. Gauze

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 31, 2013
108 A.D.3d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Gauze

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Dwayne GAUZE, appellant.

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

Date published: Jul 31, 2013

Citations

108 A.D.3d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
108 A.D.3d 778
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 5539

Citing Cases

People v. Howell

ORDERED that the resentence imposed May 22, 2012, is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, his…