On March 21, 2003, the defendant pled guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. On April 11, 2003, the defendant was sentenced to a determinate sentence of four years' imprisonment. The defendant has now moved, pro se, for an order pursuant to C.P.L. § 440.20 setting aside the five years of post-release supervision administratively imposed by the Department of Correctional Services. Neither the sentence minutes nor the court's order of commitment mention the imposition of any period of post-release supervision. Therefore, the sentence actually imposed by the court never included, and does not now include, any period of post-release supervision. Following the mandate of the Appellate Division, Second Department, the motion pursuant to C.P.L. § 440.20 must be denied, because the defendant has "received precisely the sentence for which he bargained." People v. Jeffrey Noble, 2007 NY Slip Op. 01326 (2d Dep't Feb. 13, 2007); People v. Rakim Smith, 2007 NY Slip Op. 01157 (2d Dep't Feb. 6, 2007). See also Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460 (1936); Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006). As the sentence does not include a period of post-release supervision, and the Department of Correctional Services is " conclusively bound by the contents of commitment papers accompanying a prisoner,'" Murray v. Goord, 1 NY3d 29, 32 (2003) (quoting Middleton v. New York, 54 AD2d 450, 452 (3d Dep't 1976)), it should "comply with the plain terms" of the commitment order. Murray v. Goord, 1 NY3d at 32.

Accordingly, defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of conviction is denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated:February 23, 2007

___________________

James P. Sullivan, J.S.C.