Matter of Ganci v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 71 N.Y.2d 942 (1988)
When a parole revocation is set aside due to procedural defects, the inmate’s maximum potential time under custody should not be increased by the sentence time owed on the prior sentence, and the aggregated sentence should be calculated to avoid additional incarceration for the unrevoked parole sentence.
Summary
Ganci, paroled from a 1980 sentence, was arrested in 1984 for burglary and sentenced to a 3-to-6-year term. His parole was initially revoked, but the revocation was later set aside due to improper notice. The New York State Board of Parole then recalculated Ganci’s aggregated sentence, leading to an increase in his potential time in custody. The New York Court of Appeals held that because the parole revocation was set aside, Ganci’s maximum time under custody should not be increased by the time owed on his 1980 sentence. The court directed the Board to recompute the aggregated sentence, ensuring Ganci would not be subjected to additional incarceration for the unrevoked parole sentence, crediting him with jail time.
Facts
In 1980, Ganci received consecutive sentences. He was paroled in 1984. Later in 1984, Ganci was arrested for burglary. He was convicted and received a 3-to-6-year sentence. His parole from the 1980 sentence was revoked due to the burglary charges. A stipulation later set aside the revocation because of improper notice. The Board of Parole recalculated Ganci’s term of imprisonment, aggregating his 1980 and 1984 sentences.
Procedural History
Ganci commenced a proceeding arguing his sentences should not be aggregated and he was entitled to jail time credit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division reversed, finding Ganci was entitled to jail time credit but agreed that the sentences had to be aggregated. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division that the sentences had to be aggregated but disagreed as to the method used.
Issue(s)
Whether the Board of Parole properly calculated Ganci’s aggregated sentence, considering his parole revocation from a prior sentence was set aside due to procedural defects.
Holding
No, because Ganci’s parole from the 1980 sentence was not properly revoked, his maximum potential time under custody should not be increased by the sentence time owed on the 1980 sentence.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the second method used by the Board in calculating the aggregated sentence was erroneous because it increased Ganci’s maximum potential time under custody by the sentence time owed on his 1980 sentence, despite the parole revocation being set aside. The court emphasized that the initial time calculation, which did not subject Ganci to additional incarceration for his unrevoked parole sentence, was proper. The court cited Matter of Concepcion v New York State Bd. of Parole, 71 AD2d 819 and similar cases. The court stated, “Petitioner is thus to serve his 1984 sentence and then serve his parole supervision time owed on his 1980 sentence.” The court’s decision gives effect to the stipulation setting aside the parole revocation and credits Ganci with the jail time he was entitled to. The Court found that the initial calculation satisfied the aggregation requirements of Penal Law § 70.30 (1)(b) while still giving effect to the stipulation setting aside his parole revocation.