People v. Rosenthal
| Decision Date | 29 May 2003 |
| Citation | 760 N.Y.S.2d 460,305 A.D.2d 327 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ERICA ROSENTHAL, Appellant. |
Defendant, on August 4, 1999, pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10 [1]) in exchange for which she agreed to waive indictment and receive a definite sentence of one year. Defendant appeared for sentencing on September 7, 1999, at which time the People and defense counsel requested that in lieu of the one-year prison sentence, defendant be permitted to enter a residential drug rehabilitation program for 12 to 18 months. The court agreed and stated that if defendant failed to cooperate, or left the program, she would be sentenced to the "maximum amount of time, which is 3½ to 7 years incarceration." Defendant was permitted to enter the program, as agreed upon, on September 8, 1999, with a further admonition from the court that if she failed to comply with the program, she would be subject to the maximum sentence.
The court, on or about September 30, 1999, was informed that defendant had left the rehabilitation program, apparently after becoming despondent due to the death of a close friend. The court issued a warrant and when defendant again appeared before the court, she was allowed to enter another residential drug rehabilitation program. Defendant, however, failed in the second drug program by testing positive for drugs, and thereafter appeared before the court on February 3, 2000 for sentencing.
At this juncture, the court and counsel had evidently become aware that the indeterminate sentencing scheme of 3½ to 7 years noted by the court earlier did not apply to this case because the robbery had been committed after September 1, 1998, and that the appropriate sentencing range was a determinate sentence of at least two years and not more than seven years (Penal Law § 70.02 [3] [c]). In addition, a period of postrelease supervision (PRS) (Penal Law § 70.45) of between 1½ and 3 years was a mandatory component of the sentence (Penal Law § 70.45 [2]). There is, however, no indication in the record that defendant was ever informed that her alternative sentence, if she failed to complete the drug rehabilitation program, would include a period of PRS. The "Sentence and Commitment" sheet nevertheless indicates that the court sentenced defendant to five years incarceration, of which she was informed, and two years of PRS.
Defendant subsequently moved for an order, pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h), vacating her conviction on the ground that she did not knowingly and voluntarily enter her guilty plea because the court and her counsel failed to inform her that she would be subject to PRS if she pleaded guilty. Defendant also asserted that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to her attorney's failure to inform her of the PRS. The court denied the motion, and defendant advanced the same claims on appeal. Defendant further argues on appeal that her sentence was excessive.
While it is true that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Barone
...829 N.Y.S.2d 503 [1st Dept. 2007],lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 843, 840 N.Y.S.2d 769, 872 N.E.2d 882 [2007], citing People v. Rosenthal, 305 A.D.2d 327, 329, 760 N.Y.S.2d 460 [1st Dept. 2003] ). In this case, the trial court sentenced Barone to an aggregate term of 5 1/3 to 16 years, indicating that ......
-
People v. Reyes
...11–year sentence to 8 years, with continued mental health treatment and 5 years' post-release supervision ( see People v. Rosenthal, 305 A.D.2d 327, 329, 760 N.Y.S.2d 460 [2003] [this Court “possesses broad, plenary powers to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circum......
-
People v. Guilermo P.
...864 [1981] ). The sentencing court has broad discretion with regard to the imposition of a sentence ( People v. Rosenthal, 305 A.D.2d 327, 329, 760 N.Y.S.2d 460 [1st Dept. 2003] ). This Court possesses "broad, plenary powers to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circ......
-
People v. Watt, 12676
...postrelease supervision. We now reduce defendant's prison sentence to 10 years and otherwise affirm. (see People v. Rosenthal, 305 A.D.2d 327, 329, 760 N.Y.S.2d 460 [1st Dept. 2003] [this Court "possesses broad, plenary powers to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the ci......