13 N.Y.3d 292 (2009)
When a defendant receives a split sentence of incarceration and probation, jail-time credit toward the sentence of imprisonment also reduces the term of probation, ensuring the total period does not exceed the statutory maximum.
Summary
Henderson pleaded guilty to grand larceny and received a split sentence of six months’ incarceration and five years’ probation. He received jail-time credit, was released on the sentencing day, and transferred to probation. Later, he was arrested for forgery, leading to a probation violation declaration. Henderson argued his probation term had expired due to jail-time credit. The Court of Appeals held that jail-time credit reduces both the incarceration and probation terms in a split sentence, affirming the Appellate Division’s reversal of the probation violation sentence, as Henderson’s probationary period had indeed expired.
Facts
Henderson pleaded guilty to grand larceny for Internet purchases using stolen credit card information.
On January 3, 2001, the court sentenced him to six months’ incarceration and five years’ probation.
The court acknowledged Henderson’s pre-sentencing custody since August 2000 and granted jail-time credit.
He was released on the sentencing day, and his probation was transferred.
On April 27, 2005, Henderson was arrested for forgery.
In December 2005, a probation violation declaration was filed based on the forgery arrest.
Procedural History
County Court initially imposed the split sentence.
Supreme Court rejected Henderson’s argument that his probation had expired and convicted him of violating probation.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that his probation period had expired before the declaration of delinquency.
The Court of Appeals granted permission to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether jail-time credit toward a sentence of imprisonment also reduces the term of probation when a defendant receives a split sentence of incarceration and probation.
Holding
Yes, because when a split sentence is imposed, jail-time credit reduces both the incarceration and probation terms to ensure the total period does not exceed the statutory maximum, typically five years for a felony. The Court reasoned that failing to reduce the probationary term would violate Penal Law § 60.01(2)(d).
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that Penal Law § 60.01(2)(d) dictates that the term of imprisonment and probation together cannot exceed the authorized probation term (usually five years for felonies).
The Court reasoned that if the probationary period doesn’t begin concurrently with the term of incarceration (as reduced by jail-time credit), the sentence would exceed the five-year limit, violating the statute.
The Court harmonized Penal Law § 60.01(2)(d) and § 65.15(1) by stating that probation begins on the sentencing day but is “reduced” by the period of incarceration credited.
The court addressed the People’s argument that Penal Law § 65.15(1) states probation commences on the day it is imposed, clarifying that § 60.01(2)(d), as the more specific statute regarding split sentences, takes precedence. The Court stated that “[a] well-established rule of statutory construction provides that a ‘prior general statute yields to a later specific or special statute’”.
The Court also clarified that the reduction of the probationary term cannot exceed the six-month imprisonment term, ensuring a minimum 4½-year probation period. As the Court stated, “[I]n that regard, we reemphasize that, since the statute requires that the term of incarceration, together with the term of probation, may not exceed the term of probation authorized by article 65 of the Penal Law…here five years, defendant’s term of probation had expired before the declaration of delinquency was filed and Supreme Court was without authority to adjudicate defendant a probation violator.”
This case clarifies how jail-time credit applies to split sentences, ensuring compliance with statutory limits and providing a practical framework for calculating probation terms.