People v. Daniel Boyer


AD3 order dated January 26, 2012, affirming judgment of conviction and denial of CPL §440.20 motion. Decision below: 91 A.D.3d 1183, 940 N.Y.S.2d 677. Read, J., granted leave September 12, 2012.

ISSUES PRESENTED: Whether a "genuine" PRS resentencing (pursuant to Correction Law §601-d), alters the sentencing date for use of the conviction as a predicate felony, where the resentencing occurred after the commission of the crime in the instant case. (The issue left open in People v. Acevedo, 17 N.Y.3d 297.) (Assigned counsel: Mark C. Davison, c/o Davison Law Office, PLLC, 61 North Main St., Suite C, Canandaiga, N.Y. 14424.)

People v. Daniel Boyer

People v. Equan Sanders


Issue before the Court: Whether a Sparber PRS resentencing initiated by the State (Correction Law Sec 601-d), as opposed to the defendant, resets the date of sentence for a felony conviction such that it may no longer serve as a predicate felony conviction in relation to a subsequently committed crime.


Held: Regardless of which party initiated the resentencing proceeding, a Sparber resentencing does not alter the original date of sentencing for predicate felony offender purposes.


CAL Observes: This holding answers the question left open in People v. Acevedo, 17 NY3d 297 [2011].  Depending upon the context, sometimes this holding hurts the defendant, and sometimes it helps.  Fives years after Sparber (10 NY3d 457 [2008]) was decided, the Court of Appeals has finally put this issue to rest.  Query: in retrospect, does the Court ever wish it just gave the Sparber appellants the simple relief they asked for (no resentencing, just lop off the PRS)?  It would have saved the State and localities a lot of time, money, and aggravation.