People v. Bullock
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Ind No. 3201/16,Appeal No. 15639,Case No. 2017-2574 |
| Citation | 2022 NY Slip Op 02207 |
| Parties | The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Melik Bullock, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal No. 15639 No. 2017-2574 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (DÉsirÉe Sheridan of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Michael D Tarbutton of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Renwick, J.P., Gesmer, Singh, Rodriguez, JJ.
Judgment Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.) rendered March 29, 2017, as amended August 2 and 3, 2017 convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, consecutive to a sentence imposed in Bronx County, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing, and otherwise affirmed.
The court lawfully resentenced defendant. Ten days after defendant pleaded guilty under three indictments in Bronx County to first-degree robbery and attempted robbery in three separate incidents, defendant committed the instant attempted robbery in Manhattan. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree robbery in exchange for a promised sentence of five years, to run consecutively to the sentences that would be imposed for the Bronx crimes, with all parties expecting that the Bronx sentence would be imposed first. The court adjourned the proceedings for sentencing after the anticipated sentencing date in the Bronx. After an additional adjournment, the court imposed the promised consecutive sentence, under the factually mistaken belief that defendant had already been sentenced in Bronx County. The New York County sentence was illegal, only because a court may not impose a sentence to run consecutively to a sentence in another case where the defendant has not yet been sentenced (see Penal Law 70.25[1]; People v Clapper, 133 A.D.3d 1036, 1036-1037 [3d Dept 2015]). However, the promised consecutive sentence would have been within the court's lawful authority had the facts been as the court mistakenly believed, that is, that the Bronx sentence had been imposed first (compare People v Barthel, 199 A.D.3d 32, 38-44 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1058 [2021]).
Accordingly the court had the inherent authority to correct the error that rendered the sentence unlawful (see People v DeValle, 94 N.Y.2d 870, 871-872 [2000]). When the court set aside its illegal consecutive sentence, the Bronx court had already imposed sentence on the Bronx robberies. Thus, New York County Supreme Court was "the last judge in the sentencing chain" and had the discretion to reimpose consecutive sentences (Matter of Murray v Goord, 1 N.Y.3d 29, 32 [2003]). Even where the judge is...
To continue reading
Request your trial