Title: The People v. Kezine Murray

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 110  
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Kezine Murray,
            Appellant.
Mark Diamond, for appellant.
Solomon Neubort, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant entered a plea to criminal possession of a
weapon in the third degree with the understanding that he would
"probably" be treated as a youthful offender and sentenced to a
term of nine months if he produced proof that he was in school,
received a favorable probation report, and appeared as directed
- 2 -
No. 110
- 2 -
for sentencing.  He was advised that if he did not meet these
conditions, he would be sentenced as an adult to a term of two
years in prison followed by two years of postrelease supervision
(PRS).  Defendant did not appear on the appointed sentencing
date.  When he did appear, several months later and after
issuance of a bench warrant, the court, citing defendant's non-
appearance, announced at the outset of the proceeding that it
would sentence him as an adult, and, after hearing argument from
defendant's counsel, imposed an adult sentence.  The reason for
the court's decision not to treat defendant as a youthful
offender -- his non-appearance on the original sentencing date --
was rooted in the terms of defendant's plea and evident to all
concerned; this was not a situation in which the court
arbitrarily trifled with the legitimate expectations of the
defendant based on the plea (see People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227,
240 [1974]).  Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing defendant as an adult.
Defendant's further claim that the term of the PRS
component of his sentence (three years), although of legal
duration, did not conform to the term indicated at the plea
proceeding (two years), is not preserved.  While preservation is
unnecessary to our address of a nonconforming PRS sentence where
the defendant has not been made aware of that part of the
sentence before its imposition (see People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541,
546 [2007]), here defendant was advised of what the sentence
- 3 -
No. 110
- 3 -
would be, including its PRS term, at the outset of the sentencing
proceeding.  Because defendant could have sought relief from the
sentencing court in advance of the sentence's imposition,
Louree's rationale for dispensing with the preservation
requirement is not presently applicable.      
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided June 24, 2010