MATTER OF OQUENDO v. Quinones
Decision Date | 07 February 2002 |
Parties | In the Matter of JOSE OQUENDO, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>PEDRO QUINONES, as Superintendent of Mt. McGregor Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
While petitioner was serving a 90-day sentence in jail, a federal detainer was filed on December 15, 1999 and two days later a detainer was filed on pending state charges. When the definite sentence expired on December 19, 1999, petitioner remained in jail for two days as a result of the warrants until he was taken into federal custody. On August 28, 2000, he was convicted of forgery in the second degree in County Court of Montgomery County and sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 2 to 4 years. The court recommended that, if permitted by law, the sentence should run concurrently with any sentence to be imposed on the federal charges and that petitioner should be credited with time served. On October 20, 2000, petitioner was convicted on the pending federal charges and sentenced to one year and one day, with the recommendation that the sentence be served in the Federal Correctional Facility at Ray Brook, Essex County. He was received by the Department of Correctional Services on November 20, 2000.[*]
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to obtain credit against the 2 to 4-year prison term for the time he spent in custody from the December 15, 1999 filing of the federal detainer until his receipt by the Department. After discovering and correcting certain errors in the calculation of petitioner's sentence, which did not give petitioner all of the relief he was seeking, respondents moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, failure to join necessary parties and a defense based on documentary evidence. Supreme Court granted the motion. Petitioner appeals.
To the extent that petitioner's claim is based on the theory that he is entitled to credit for time spent in federal custody because County Court directed that, if permitted by law, his state sentence should run concurrently with the federal sentence, the statute which authorizes a sentencing court to direct that a sentence run concurrently with the sentence imposed in another jurisdiction applies only with respect to the undischarged term of a sentence "imposed at a previous time by a court of another jurisdiction" (Penal Law § 70.25 [4]). Accordingly, the law did not permit the sentence imposed by County Court to run concurrently with a subsequently imposed federal sentence. In these circumstances, petitioner is entitled to credit against his state sentence for time spent in federal custody if his inability to obtain release from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Francis v. Fiacco
...state sentence run concurrently with a not-yet-imposed sentence from another jurisdiction. See Matter of Oquendo v. Quinones , 291 A.D.2d 593, 594, 738 N.Y.S.2d 398 (3d Dep’t 2002) ("[T]he law did not permit the sentence imposed ... to run concurrently with a subsequently imposed federal se......
-
People v. Barthel
...( People v. Clapper , 133 A.D.3d 1036, 1036, 19 N.Y.S.3d 194 [3d Dept. 2015] [ Clapper I ]; see also Matter of Oquendo v. Quinones , 291 A.D.2d 593, 594, 738 N.Y.S.2d 398 [3d Dept. 2002] ).5 153 N.Y.S.3d 389 Up to this point, the analysis is straightforward: County Court had no power to usu......
-
People v. Barthel
...had not yet been imposed" (People v Clapper, 133 A.D.3d 1036, 1036 [3d Dept 2015] [ Clapper I ]; see also Matter of Oquendo v Quinones, 291 A.D.2d 593, 594 [3d Dept 2002]). [5] Up to this point, the analysis is straightforward: County Court had no power to usurp Supreme Court's prerogative ......
-
People v. Barthel
...had not yet been imposed" (People v Clapper, 133 A.D.3d 1036, 1036 [3d Dept 2015] [ Clapper I ]; see also Matter of Oquendo v Quinones, 291 A.D.2d 593, 594 [3d Dept 2002]). [5] Up to this point, the analysis is straightforward: County Court had no power to usurp Supreme Court's prerogative ......