Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Public Defense Blogs -> Indignant Indigent
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Public Defense
: Indignant IndigentSentences are Imposed by Judges and Not by DOCS
ADVERTISEMENTS
Norm Effman lived an appellate attorney's dream. On the morning of February 20, 2008 he argued two cases challenging the authority of the Department of Corrections to add a term of post release supervision {PRS} to a sentence when the sentencing judge has not imposed PRS. That afternoon, the Fourth Department issued two decisions (People ex rel. Burch v Goord 2008 NY Slip Op 01445 and People ex rel. Eaddy v Goord 2008 NY Slip Op 01446 ), in which the Court, expressly disavowed to of its prior decisions,granted Norm's clients' their requested releife, and joined the Second Circuit in holind ghtat judges and judges alone, impose sentences:Supreme Court relied in part on our decisions in People v Hollenbach (307 AD2d 776, lv denied 100 NY2d 642) and People v Crump (302 AD2d 901, lv denied 100 NY2d 537). We reverse, however, because we agree with the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that, in the event that a court does not impose a period of postrelease supervision as part of a defendant's sentence, the sentence has no postrelease supervision component (Earley v Murray, 451 F3d 71, 76, reh denied 462 F3d 147; see People ex rel. [*2]Gerard [Colarusso] v Kralik, 44 AD3d 804, 804-805; People v Martinez, 40 AD3d 1012; see generally Hill v United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 US 460, 464). As the Court of Appeals has stated, postrelease supervision is a "direct consequence of a criminal conviction" (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244; see People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541, 545), and we conclude that it therefore must be expressly imposed by the court (see Earley, 451 F3d at 76). To the extent that our prior decisions in Hollenbach and Crump hold otherwise, they are no longer to be followed (see People ex rel. Eaddy v Goord, ___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 20, 2008]).
People ex rel. Burch v Goord [2008 NY Slip Op 01445].
Full post as published by Indignant Indigent on March 09, 2008 (boomark / email).
Related Law Articles
Women and the Law
Women in the Justice System (judges, attorneys)
Lawsuits and Settlements
Pennsylvania Juvenille Detention
Judges Face Class Action
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Criminals given 'unduly lenient' sentences must serve extra time in prison
SCOTUS gives district judges more discretion in sentencing
Massachusetts Federal Judges Begin Releasing Crack Offenders
Mangaroo: Probation Plain Error for 924(c) sentence
Dancing on the graves of the poor








