DIGGS, RONNIE, PEOPLE v ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    881
    KA 10-02116
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    RONNIE DIGGS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Monroe County
    (David D. Egan, J.), rendered September 2, 2010. Defendant was
    resentenced upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree (four
    counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts), assault in the
    second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second
    degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a resentence pursuant to
    which Supreme Court added various terms of postrelease supervision
    (PRS) to the sentence previously imposed on his conviction, following
    a jury trial, of four counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law
    § 160.15 [2], [4]), three counts of robbery in the second degree (§
    160.10 [1], [2] [a]), and one count each of assault in the second
    degree (§ 120.05 [2]), and criminal possession of a weapon in the
    second degree (§ 265.03 [former (2)]). Defendant contends that the
    over seven-year gap between his original sentencing and his
    resentencing divested the court of jurisdiction to resentence him
    pursuant to CPL 380.30 (1) (see People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198, 213).
    Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see
    People v Dissottle, 68 AD3d 1542, 1543, lv denied 14 NY3d 799; People
    v Cecere, 39 AD3d 557, 558, lv denied 9 NY3d 873), and we decline to
    exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion
    in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
    Entered:   September 28, 2012                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 10-02116

Filed Date: 9/28/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016