People v. Velez, 20 N.Y.3d 645 (2013)

While statutory deadlines for resentencing under Correction Law § 601-d are not strictly enforced absent prejudice to the defendant, resentencing after the original sentence has expired violates double jeopardy protections.

Summary

These cases address the timeliness of resentencing defendants to include a term of post-release supervision (PRS) that was illegally omitted from their original sentences. The Court of Appeals held that failing to meet the statutory deadlines in Correction Law § 601-d does not invalidate a resentencing, absent egregious delay or prejudice to the defendant. However, the Court also held that resentencing Velez after the expiration of his original sentence violated double jeopardy principles, as established in People v. Williams. The Court emphasized the importance of a clear temporal limitation on a court’s ability to resentence.

Facts

Both Velez and Rodriguez were convicted of violent felonies and received determinate sentences, which legally required PRS. The sentencing courts failed to impose a PRS term in either case. DOCS notified the sentencing courts of the omissions, triggering the resentencing procedures outlined in Correction Law § 601-d. In Velez’s case, the resentencing occurred after his original sentence had expired. Rodriguez was resentenced while still serving his original sentence.

Procedural History

The Appellate Division reversed Velez’s resentence, citing double jeopardy. It affirmed Rodriguez’s resentence. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal in both cases.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the failure to meet the statutory deadlines in Correction Law § 601-d invalidates a resentencing.

2. Whether resentencing a defendant to include PRS after the original sentence has expired violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Holding

1. No, because the statute does not explicitly prohibit resentencing after the deadlines have passed, and legislative history indicates that the deadlines were not intended as strict limitations on the court’s power to resentence.

2. Yes, because resentencing after the original sentence has been fully served violates double jeopardy, as it infringes on the defendant’s legitimate expectation of finality in their sentence.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that while Correction Law § 601-d sets forth specific deadlines for resentencing, it does not state that failure to meet these deadlines bars resentencing. The Court cited legislative history, specifically statements from the Division of Criminal Justice Services and the Governor’s approval memorandum, indicating that resentencing is not precluded by missing the deadlines. The Court acknowledged arguments that the strict regulation of deadline extensions suggests substantive significance but maintained that the legislature could have explicitly forbidden resentencing after the deadlines if that was their intent. The Court also emphasized the public safety concerns that would arise if warranted PRS terms were not imposed simply because of missed deadlines.

Regarding double jeopardy, the Court relied on People v. Williams, which held that resentencing to add PRS after the original sentence is completed is forbidden. The Court rejected the People’s argument that the beginning of a resentencing proceeding before the sentence expires negates the double jeopardy concern, stating, “Under Williams, a defendant acquires a ‘legitimate expectation of finality’ when his sentence has been fully served, and the sentence may not then be enhanced by adding a term of PRS.” The Court emphasized its intent in Williams to establish a clear temporal limitation on resentencing and found that allowing resentencing to depend on the start of proceedings would create uncertainty and incentivize defendants to stall. The Court noted that prosecutors can avoid double jeopardy issues by diligently seeking resentencing well before the original sentence’s expiration date. A direct quote: “Even where a defendant’s sentence is illegal, there is a legitimate expectation of finality once the initial sentence has been served and the direct appeal has been completed (or the time to appeal has expired). In these situations, the sentences are beyond the court’s authority and an additional term of PRS may not be imposed”