People v Hanley

Decided and Entered: August 2, 2007
100081
______
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,
v
DAVID S. HANLEY, Appellant.
_
Calendar Date: .....

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Decided and Entered: August 2, 2007 100081 ________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v DAVID S. HANLEY, Appellant. ___________________________ Calendar Date: June 13, 2007 Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ. __________ Richard V. Manning, Parishville, for appellant. Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Alfred D. Chapleau of counsel), for respondent. __________ Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Giardino, J.), rendered January 31, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree. Defendant was charged in an indictment with multiple crimes following a domestic dispute with his wife. In full satisfaction of the indictment, he pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree and executed a written waiver of his right to appeal. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to four years in prison to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals. Preliminarily, we note that defendant’s challenge to the legality of the sentence survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Dukes, 14 AD3d 732, 733 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 885 [2005]). We find no merit to his claim that the five-year period of postrelease supervision was illegally imposed. Defendant was sentenced under Penal Law § 70.06 (6) (c) as a second felony offender upon his conviction of a class D violent felony. As such, he was subject to the general five-year period of postrelease supervison set forth in Penal Law § 70.45 (2) and not the 11/2 to 3-year period applicable to defendants sentenced under Penal Law § 70.02 (3) (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2] [e]; see e.g. People v Chestnut, 18 AD3d 965, 966 [2005]). Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

People v Hanley

Decided and Entered: August 2, 2007 100081 ________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v DAVID S. HANLEY, Appellant. ___________________________ Calendar Date: .....

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal

Decided and Entered: August 2, 2007
100081
______
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,
v
DAVID S. HANLEY, Appellant.
_
Calendar Date: .....