People v. Colon, 77 N.Y.2d 1010 (1991)
A sentence of probation is illegal when a defendant is also sentenced to imprisonment for another crime, regardless of whether the crimes are charged in the same accusatory instrument.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that Penal Law § 65.00(1) prohibits a sentence of probation when the defendant also receives a sentence of imprisonment for another crime, even if the crimes are charged in separate accusatory instruments. The Court reasoned that the purpose of probation is to supervise offenders in the community, which is incompatible with imprisonment. The phrase “in any case” in the statute refers to “in any instance” of multiple crimes, not just those within a single accusatory instrument. Therefore, the Appellate Division’s order was modified to vacate the probation sentence and remand for resentencing.
Facts
The defendant, Colon, attempted to cash a stolen check on May 7, 1989. Five months later, in a separate incident, he obtained cocaine and shared it with an undercover officer. On December 21, 1989, Colon waived indictment and pleaded guilty to two superior court informations related to these incidents.
Procedural History
The defendant was sentenced on February 20, 1990, to one year in Dutchess County Jail for the stolen check charge and five years’ probation for the drug possession charge. Colon appealed the sentence, arguing that the probation sentence was illegal under Penal Law § 65.00(1). The Appellate Division rejected this argument, interpreting the statute to apply only when multiple crimes are charged in a single accusatory instrument. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether Penal Law § 65.00(1) prohibits a sentence of probation when a defendant is also sentenced to imprisonment for another crime, even if the crimes are charged in separate accusatory instruments.
Holding
Yes, because Penal Law § 65.00(1) prohibits a sentence of probation when the defendant is also sentenced to imprisonment for another crime, regardless of whether the crimes are charged in the same accusatory instrument. The phrase “in any case” refers to any instance where a defendant is sentenced for multiple crimes, and the purpose of probation is to supervise offenders in the community, which is inconsistent with imprisonment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals analyzed the language and legislative history of Penal Law § 65.00(1). The Court noted that the phrase “in any case” is commonly used in the Penal and Criminal Procedure Laws to mean “in any instance,” not limited to a single accusatory instrument. The Court referenced CPL 220.35 as an example of this usage. The Court also examined the legislative history of Penal Law § 65.00(1), quoting the Commission Staff Notes, which stated that probation is inappropriate for defendants being imprisoned because its purpose is to supervise offenders without removing them from the community. The court stated, “As the Commission indicated, probation is inappropriate for defendants being imprisoned because the ‘basic purpose’ of probation is to provide supervision without removing offenders from the community.” The Court reasoned that this rationale applies whether the crimes are contained in a single accusatory instrument or separate ones. The Court emphasized that the dispositive factor is that the defendant is being imprisoned for “some other crime.” The court held that the Legislature did not authorize probation as a sentencing option under these circumstances. The Court modified the Appellate Division’s order, vacating the probation sentence and remitting the case for resentencing. The Court found Colon’s remaining contention unpreserved for review.