People v. Coleman, 30 N.Y.2d 582 (1972)
Even after a guilty plea, an appellate court can review the severity of a defendant’s sentence, and a defendant serving a sentence claimed to be excessive may be entitled to resentencing to revive their right to appeal.
Summary
The defendant, Coleman, claimed his sentence was excessive after pleading guilty. The lower court denied him Montgomery relief (resentencing to allow an appeal), and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a defendant serving a sentence claimed to be excessive is entitled to appellate review of that sentence, even after a guilty plea. The court emphasized that the Appellate Division has the discretion to modify sentences. The denial of Montgomery relief was not a determination on the merits of the excessive sentence claim.
Facts
Coleman was serving a maximum sentence after pleading guilty. He sought resentencing under People v. Montgomery to revive his right to appeal, arguing his sentence was excessive. The hearing judge denied this relief.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court denied Coleman’s request for resentencing. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant, currently serving a maximum sentence after a guilty plea and claiming the sentence is excessive, is entitled to resentencing under People v. Montgomery to revive their right to appeal, so that the Appellate Division can review the propriety of the sentence.
Holding
Yes, because when a defendant is serving a sentence claimed to be excessive, they may raise that question on appeal, and are entitled to Montgomery relief to revive that right.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that although the scope of appeal after a guilty plea is limited, the severity of the sentence is a reviewable question. Citing People v. Lynn, the court stated that a claim of excessive sentence is a “viable claim” in a People v. Montgomery application. The court emphasized that the Appellate Division has the power to consider the propriety of the sentence and can either affirm or modify it. The court noted that the lower courts’ denial of Montgomery relief was not a determination on the merits of the excessive sentence claim, but only a determination that no appealable issue was shown. This meant the Appellate Division never actually considered the merits of the sentence. The Court of Appeals concluded that the merits of the excessive sentence claim were a proper subject of review for the Appellate Division, and thus resentencing was required to allow that review. The court did not delve into specific policy considerations beyond ensuring defendants had the opportunity to have potentially excessive sentences reviewed on appeal, even after pleading guilty.