People v. Samuels

• Decision Date: 27 January 2011
• Citation: People v. Samuels, 915 N.Y.S.2d 758, 80 A.D.3d 1077 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marion SAMUELS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

915 N.Y.S.2d 758

80 A.D.3d 1077

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Marion SAMUELS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Jan. 27, 2011.

Danise A. Stephens, Albany, for appellant.

James R. Farrell, District Attorney (Bonnie M. Mitzner of counsel), Monticello, for respondent.

Before: PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, ROSE, KAVANAGH and EGAN JR., JJ.

ROSE, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), entered January 6, 2010, which denied defendant's motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46.

In 2000, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal, upon the understanding that he would be permitted to re-plead to a lesser charge if he cooperated with law enforcement officials. He did not cooperate, and County Court sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment. Defendant subsequently applied for resentencingpursuant to CPL 440.46, "which extended the availability of reduced sentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 to individuals convicted of class B drug felonies" ( People v. Colon, 77 A.D.3d 849, 850, 909 N.Y.S.2d 144 [2010] [citation omitted] ). County Court denied defendant's application, and he appeals.

We reverse. While County Court was entitled to deny defendant's application if "substantial justice dictate[d]" such a result (L. 2004, ch. 738, § 23; see CPL 440.46[3] ), it could not base that denial upon misinformation or materially untrue assumptions ( see People v. Naranjo, 89 N.Y.2d 1047, 1049, 659 N.Y.S.2d 826, 681 N.E.2d 1272 [1997]; People v. Braithwaite, 62 A.D.3d 1019, 1020-1021, 62 A.D.3d 1019, 880 N.Y.S.2d 669 [2009] ). A court is directed to consider a defendant's prison disciplinary history in weighing his or her application for resentencing and, in this case, defendant had incurred six disciplinary citations during his current term of incarceration ( see CPL 440.46[3] ). In its decision, however, County Court overstated the severity of several of them. While the People suggest that this overstatement was a typographical error that did not affect County Court's decision, we are not at liberty to make that assumption. County Court's express mention of "three Tier III hearings" in its decision "indicates that [it] probably considered them to be material" ( United States v. Stein, 544 F.2d 96, 102 [2d Cir.1976]; see Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 740, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 [1948]; People v. Barnes, 60 A.D.3d 861, 863-864, 875 N.Y.S.2d 545 [2009]; People v. Metellus, 46 A.D.3d 578, 579, 846 N.Y.S.2d 623 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 814, 857 N.Y.S.2d 47, 886 N.E.2d 812 [2008] ). As "material false assumptions as to any facts relevant to sentencing ... renders the entire sentencing procedure invalid as a violation of due process," we must remit this matter for County Court to redetermine defendant's motion( United States v. Malcolm, 432 F.2d 809, 816 [2d Cir.1970]; see People v. Braithwaite, 62 A.D.3d at 1020-1021, 880 N.Y.S.2d 669).

As a final matter, County Court stated-and the sentence and commitment order reflects-that defendant received a prison sentence of 12 1/2 to 25 years ( see Penal Law former § 70.00; § 70.06[3], [4]; see also L. 2004, ch. 738, § 28). In contrast, the sentencing transcript indicates that a sentence of 12 1/2 to 20 years was imposed, and defendant now claims that such was the actual sentence. County Court accordingly must resolve that discrepancy upon remittal ( see People v. Gray, 11 A.D.3d 821, 822, 783 N.Y.S.2d 428 [2004]; People v. Mohammed, 151 A.D.2d 1018, 1018-1019, 542 N.Y.S.2d 82 [1989], lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 815, 546 N.Y.S.2d 573, 545 N.E.2d 887 [1989] ).

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Sullivan County for further proceedings...