Opinion
2014-02-13
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert L. WILLIAMS Jr., Appellant.
Craig S. Leeds, Albany, for appellant. Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), for respondent.
Craig S. Leeds, Albany, for appellant. Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), for respondent.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., GARRY, ROSE and EGAN JR., JJ.
ROSE, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered August 8, 2011, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crime of burglary in the first degree.
In 2005, defendant was convicted of three counts of murder in the first degree and one count of burglary in the first degree and was thereafter sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole with respect to the murder convictions and 25 years in prison for the burglary conviction, all to be served concurrently (45 A.D.3d 905, 844 N.Y.S.2d 477 [2007], lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 818, 857 N.Y.S.2d 51, 886 N.E.2d 816 [2008] ). At that time, County Court failed to include statutorily required postrelease supervision with respect to the burglary in the first degree conviction. Accordingly, in 2011, the court resentenced defendant to 25 years in prison on this conviction, followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. “Whether to obtain an updated presentence report is a matter resting within the discretion of the sentencing court” (People v. Lakatosz, 89 A.D.3d 1329, 1330, 933 N.Y.S.2d 439 [2011], lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 925, 942 N.Y.S.2d 464, 965 N.E.2d 966 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Kuey, 83 N.Y.2d 278, 282–283, 609 N.Y.S.2d 568, 631 N.E.2d 574 [1994] ). Here, defendant has been continuously incarcerated since the original sentence and was afforded an opportunity to address County Court at resentencing. Moreover, County Court presided over defendant's trial and noted during the resentencing proceedings that it imposed the underlying sentence herein. Under these circumstances, we find no basis to conclude that the court abused its discretion regarding this issue ( see People v. Lakatosz, 89 A.D.3d at 1330, 933 N.Y.S.2d 439). Nor do we find any merit to defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to request an updated sentencing report ( see People v. Porter, 95 A.D.3d 1450, 1451, 944 N.Y.S.2d 392 [2012], lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 1000, 951 N.Y.S.2d 476, 975 N.E.2d 922 [2012] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. McCARTHY, J.P., GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.