People v. DeValle

• Decision Date: 11 January 2000
• Citation: 704 N.Y.S.2d 924,726 N.E.2d 476,94 N.Y.2d 870
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS DEVALLE, Also Known as DWIGHT HAYES, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

94 N.Y.2d 870

726 N.E.2d 476

704 N.Y.S.2d 924

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS DEVALLE, Also Known as DWIGHT HAYES, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued November 17, 1999.

Decided January 11, 2000.

Elon Harpaz and M. Sue Wycoff, New York City, for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Donald J. Siewert and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK, WESLEY and ROSENBLATT concur.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

On October 25, 1995 defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the third degree, and on November 17, 1995, based upon his plea, the trial court sentenced defendant to two to four years in prison, to run concurrently with an undischarged portion of an earlier sentence. By letter dated January 5, 1996, however, the Department of Correctional Services notified the trial court that Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a) required that defendant's sentence run consecutively with his prior sentence. The court, on its own motion, calendared the case for resentencing.

At resentencing defense counsel stated that defendant wanted neither to withdraw his plea nor to be resentenced. Over defendant's objection, however, the court resentenced defendant to a consecutive term. On defendant's appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the resentencing, as do we, but for different reasons.

Defendant rests his entire appeal on the legality of the sentence and argues that the trial court had no authority to vacate his sentence and impose a consecutive term because there was no "clerical-type" error in the original sentence and all parties had agreed to the original disposition. We conclude that the trial court had inherent power to correct the illegal sentence it initially imposed.

In People v Williams (87 NY2d 1014, 1015), this Court held that "the trial court had the inherent power to correct an illegal sentence" over the defendant's objection where the corrected sentence fell within the range initially stated by the court (id., at 1015, citing People v Minaya, 54 NY2d 360,cert denied 455 US 1024). There, the defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and, at the time of the plea, was told by the court that he could be sentenced to up to 15 years' imprisonment. He was originally sentenced as if he were a predicate felon to 3½ to 7 years' imprisonment, a sentence that was illegal due to his actual status as a first felony offender. On its own motion, the court corrected its error and resentenced the defendant to 3½ to 10½ years in prison, a sentence well within the defendant's...