People v Lingle
2009 NY Slip Op 07680 [66 AD3d 582]
October 27, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
John Lingle, Appellant.

[*1] Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Barbara Zolot of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered June 27, 2008, resentencing defendant, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 14 years and 3½ to 7 years with five years' postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly resentenced defendant to comply with the requirement that a term of postrelease supervision be part of the court's oral pronouncement of sentence. Defendant's challenges to his resentencing are similar to arguments rejected by this Court in People v Hernandez (59 AD3d 180 [2009], lv granted 12 NY3d 817 [2009]). In addition, since defendant was resentenced while still serving his prison sentence, his claim that he had a legitimate expectation of finality in his original defective sentence is even weaker than the argument made in Hernandez. We also note that defendant was one of the defendants in People v Sparber (10 NY3d 457 [2008]), and his resentencing for the purpose of orally imposing postrelease supervision was expressly mandated by the Court of Appeals.

To the extent defendant is requesting a reduction of his prison sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, we find that request both procedurally improper on the present appeal and without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.