'People v. Lashley': The Illegal Sentence Exception to the Preservation Requirement
This article aims to clarify the impact of 'Lashley' on the illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement where there is a claim of illegal predicate felon adjudication.
March 18, 2022 at 11:00 AM
17 minute read
Preservation is an important concept in the field of appellate review. Lack of preservation often forecloses review of an issue on appeal. In the criminal context, there are, however, some important exceptions to the preservation requirement. One of those exceptions is a challenge to an unlawful sentence. This "is a narrow exception to [the] preservation rule permitting appellate review when a sentence's illegality is readily discernible from the trial record." People v. Santiago, 22 N.Y.3d 900, 903 (2013). In a recent case, People v. Lashley, 37 N.Y.3d 1140 (2021)), decided Dec. 14, 2021, the Court of Appeals rejected application of the illegal sentence exception where a defendant claimed that an enhanced sentence based upon a predicate felon adjudication was illegal because the prosecution relied on a facially insufficient predicate statement. The statement failed to set forth the necessary tolling period for a predicate conviction that was over 10 years old. The Court of Appeals' short memorandum decision in Lashley provides limited guidance as to why the illegal sentence exception did not apply in that scenario. This article aims to clarify the impact of Lashley on the illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement where there is a claim of illegal predicate felon adjudication.
In People v. Lashley, defendant was adjudicated a second felony offender pursuant to P.L. §70.06. (Pursuant to P.L. §70.06, for a defendant to be deemed a predicate felon or second felony offender, the defendant must have a prior felony conviction in the past 10 years. In the event the defendant was incarcerated, the 10 years starts from the completion of the incarceration.) As a result, defendant was subject to an enhanced sentence regarding her guilty plea to second degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, based on an April 1, 2016, incident in which she opened a store credit card account using a license bearing another person's name. The problem in Lashley arose because, under Penal Law 70.06(1)(b)(iv)(v), a court may sentence a defendant as a second felony offender, only if the defendant was sentenced on the prior felony offense within 10 years of the commission of the instant offense. Periods of incarceration toll the 10-year period. It is the prosecution's burden to establish a tolling period, which must be affirmatively alleged in a predicate statement pursuant to CPL §400.21[2]).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Second’ Time’s a Charm? The Second Circuit Reaffirms the Contours of the Special Interest Beneficiary Standing Rule
Attorney Fee Reimbursement for Non-Party Subpoena Recipients Under CPLR 3122(d)
6 minute readHere’s Looking at You, Starwood: A Piercing the Corporate Veil Story?
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1SDNY US Attorney Damian Williams Lands at Paul Weiss
- 2Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4Norton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over Ethnicity Score System
- 5KMPG Wants to Provide Legal Services in the US. Now All Eyes Are on Their Big Four Peers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250