Opinion
2013-08-14
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mark SERRANO, appellant.
Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant.William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), imposed February 28, 2012, upon his convictions of murder in the first degree (20 counts), murder in the second degree (10 counts), arson in the third degree, robbery in the first degree (6 counts), conspiracy in the fourth degree, perjury in the second degree, and conspiracy in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, the resentence being periods of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on April 8, 2008, upon the convictions of robbery in the first degree.
ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that his resentencing violated CPL 380.30 and 440.40 are unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ), and, in any event, are without merit ( see People v. Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198, 212–213, 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. Langenbach, 106 A.D.3d 1338, 1338–1339, 966 N.Y.S.2d 252). Additionally, the resentencing did not subject the defendant to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law ( see People v. Lingle, 16 N.Y.3d 621, 630–633, 926 N.Y.S.2d 4, 949 N.E.2d 952;People v. Marhone, 107 A.D.3d 743, 965 N.Y.S.2d 881;People v. Lima, 105 A.D.3d 774, 774, 961 N.Y.S.2d 795,lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 944, 968 N.Y.S.2d 7, 990 N.E.2d 141).
The periods of postrelease supervision imposed by the County Court upon the defendant's resentence were not excessive ( see People v. Lima, 105 A.D.3d at 774, 961 N.Y.S.2d 795).