People v. Paulin

• Decision Date: 28 June 2011
• Docket Number: No. 137,137
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The People & c., Respondent, v. David Lance Paulin, Appellant. —- No. 138 The People & c., Respondent, v. Jesus Pratts, Appellant. —- No. 143 SSM 27 The People & c., Appellant, v. James F. Phillips, Respondent.

2011 NY Slip Op 05544

The People & c., Respondent,
v.
David Lance Paulin, Appellant. —- No. 138
The People & c., Respondent,
v.
Jesus Pratts, Appellant. —- No. 143 SSM 27
The People & c., Appellant,
v.
James F. Phillips, Respondent.

No. 137

Court of Appeals of New York

Decided: June 28, 2011

Case Nos. 137 and 138:

Mark W. Zeno, for appellant.

Maureen L. Grosdidier, for respondent.

Case No. 143 SSM 27:

New York City Bar Association, amicus curiae. Lauren E. Grasso, for appellant.

Mark Diamond, for respondent.

SMITH, J.:

Page 2

The 2009 Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA) allows certain prisoners sentenced under the so-called Rockefeller Drug Laws to be resentenced. We hold that prisoners who have been paroled, and then reincarcerated for violating their parole, are not for that reason barred from seeking relief under the statute.

I

David Lance Paulin, Jesus Pratts and James Phillips all committed class B felonies involving narcotics, and were sentenced to indeterminate prison terms under the Rockefeller Drug Laws, which governed sentencing of drug offenders until 2005. Paulin and Pratts received sentences of two to six years and Phillips five to ten years. All were paroled, violated their parole, and were sent back to prison. After the enactment of the 2009 DLRA, they applied for resentencing.

Supreme Court denied the applications, holding that relief under the statute was not available to reincarcerated parole violators. In Paulin and Pratts, the Appellate Division agreed with that conclusion, and affirmed (People v Paulin, 74 AD3d 685 [1st Dept 2010]; People v Pratts, 74 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2010]). In Phillips, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the 2009 DLRA did not render parole violators "ineligible to apply for resentencing" (People v Phillips, 82 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2d Dept 2011]).

In each case, a Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal. The Phillips case, however, has become moot, because the maximum term of Phillips's sentence has expired, and the People's appeal in that case must be dismissed.

The People argue that the Paulin and Pratts cases are also moot. We disagree. Though Paulin's maximum sentence for his original drug conviction, like Phillips's, has now expired, Paulin was sentenced in another case involving a later crime while he was still imprisoned on the earlier charge. If he is resentenced on the earlier charge, that resentencing could affect the time credited toward his later sentence. As for Pratts, the expiration date of his maximum sentence has not been reached. He has again been released on parole, but as we hold in People v Santiago (___ NY3d ___ [2011]), decided today, that release does not defeat the application for resentencing that he made while still in prison.

We therefore retain jurisdiction in Paulin and Pratts. We reverse in both cases.

II

The 2009 DLRA is codified (in part) at CPL § 440.46. It permits people imprisoned for class B drug felonies committed while the Rockefeller Drug Laws were in force to apply to be resentenced under the current, less severe, sentencing regime. At the time of Paulin's and Pratts's applications, CPL § 440.46 (1) said:

"Any person in the custody of the department of correctional services convicted of a class B felony offense defined in article two hundred twenty of the penal law which was committed prior to

Page 3

January thirteenth, two thousand five, who is serving an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term of more than three years, may, except as provided in subdivision five of this section, upon notice to the appropriate district attorney, apply to be resentenced to a determinate sentence in accordance with sections 60.04 and 70.70 of the penal law in the court which

...