People v. Ford
| Decision Date | 27 September 1988 |
| Citation | 143 A.D.2d 522,533 N.Y.S.2d 35 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert FORD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before DILLON, P.J., and DENMAN, GREEN, LAWTON and DAVIS, JJ.
Upon his plea to attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, defendant was sentenced as a predicate felon to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 1/2--3 years to run concurrently with the undischarged term of his previously imposed indeterminate sentence. The court was required to impose a sentence to run consecutively with respect to the undischarged sentence (Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a] ). Since the court's original sentence was defective and invalid, the court had inherent power to correct its own error by resentencing the defendant to a consecutive term (see, People v. Wright, 56 N.Y.2d 613, 450 N.Y.S.2d 473, 435 N.E.2d 1088; People v. Minaya, 54 N.Y.2d 360, 365, 445 N.Y.S.2d 690, 429 N.E.2d 1161, cert. denied 455 U.S. 1024, 102 S.Ct. 1725, 72 L.Ed.2d 144; cf. Matter of Campbell v. Pesce, 60 N.Y.2d 165, 168-169, 468 N.Y.S.2d 865, 456 N.E.2d 806). The court erred, however, in denying defendant's application to withdraw his plea; therefore, we remand defendant to Niagara County Court so that he may withdraw his guilty plea and stand trial or be resentenced in compliance with the law (see, People v. Price, 140 A.D.2d 927, 529 N.Y.S.2d 607). We have considered defendant's remaining claim that his plea was invalid and find that it is without merit.
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Niagara County Court for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Minott
...N.Y.2d 165, 169, 468 N.Y.S.2d 865, 456 N.E.2d 806 (1983) ], or an illegal sentence inadvertently imposed [e.g., People v. Ford, 143 A.D.2d 522, 533 N.Y.S.2d 35 (4th Dept., 1988) ]. [Matter of Lockett v. Juviler, 65 N.Y.2d 182, 490 N.Y.S.2d 764, 480 N.E.2d 378 (1985); see also, People v. Sma......
-
People v. Franco
...is well recognized in statutory and case law (see People v. Wright, 56 N.Y.2d 613, 450 N.Y.S.2d 473, 435 N.E.2d 1088; People v. Ford, 143 A.D.2d 522, 533 N.Y.S.2d 35; People v. Smith, 164 Misc.2d 306, 624 N.Y.S.2d 792; CPL 440.40[1]; cf., People v. Riggins, 164 A.D.2d 797, 559 N.Y.S.2d 535)......
-
Joyner v. Smith
... ... The misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's determination (see, People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 495 N.Y.S.2d 332, 485 N.E.2d 997; Matter of Samuels v. Kelly, 125 A.D.2d 1009, 509 N.Y.S.2d 682). Issues of ... ...
-
People v. Riggins
...correct errors, whenever evidenced, which do not even appear in the record." A Fourth Department memorandum decision, (People v. Ford, 143 A.D.2d 522, 533 N.Y.S.2d 35), does hold to the contrary. However, its premise that Wright, supra, created a general inherent judicial power to vacate il......