People v. Young, 94 N.Y.2d 170 (1999)
An intermediate appellate court has the discretion, when reversing or modifying a sentence, either to remit the case to the trial court for resentencing or to substitute its own legal sentence for the illegally imposed sentence.
Summary
The People appealed from an Appellate Division order modifying a judgment of the trial court by directing that all sentences run concurrently, arguing that the Appellate Division’s only option was to remit the case for resentencing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that under CPL 470.20, an intermediate appellate court has the discretion to either remit for resentencing or substitute its own legal sentence when correcting an illegal sentence. The Court found that the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in choosing to modify the sentence itself.
Facts
The defendant was convicted of sodomy in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences for these convictions. The Appellate Division found that imposing consecutive sentences was erroneous because both convictions arose from a single incident.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the defendant and imposed consecutive sentences. The Appellate Division modified the trial court’s judgment, directing that the sentences run concurrently instead of consecutively. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Appellate Division lacked the authority to modify the sentence and should have remitted the case to the trial court for resentencing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether, under CPL 470.20, the Appellate Division’s only available corrective action on the illegal sentence was to remit for resentencing by the trial court.
Holding
No, because an intermediate appellate court, in exercising its responsibility under CPL 470.20 to take “such corrective action as is necessary and appropriate,” has the discretion, upon reversing or modifying a sentence, either to remit to the trial court for resentencing or to substitute its own legal sentence for the illegally imposed sentence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that CPL 470.20 grants appellate courts the power to take “such corrective action as is necessary and appropriate.” This broad language, according to the Court, allows the Appellate Division to choose between remitting the case or modifying the sentence directly. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Division is not limited to remittal and has the discretion to substitute its own legal sentence. The court stated that an intermediate appellate court has the discretion, upon reversing or modifying a sentence, either to remit to the trial court for resentencing or to substitute its own legal sentence for the illegally imposed sentence. The court found no abuse of discretion in the Appellate Division’s decision to modify the sentence, concluding that the statute allows for both options when an illegal sentence is identified. The decision provides flexibility for appellate courts to efficiently correct sentencing errors without necessarily requiring a new hearing at the trial level. The ruling ensures that appellate courts have the tools necessary to provide effective remedies for sentencing errors, promoting judicial efficiency and fairness in the criminal justice system.