Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department decision affirms the defendant’s assault in the second degree conviction following a guilty plea. The court addresses the defendant’s claims regarding the length of his postrelease supervision sentence and the imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees. Finding no abuse of discretion or statutory basis for waiver under CPL 420.35(2-a), the court upholds the trial court’s judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the period of post‑release supervision imposed as part of the sentence was excessive.
- Whether the mandatory surcharge and fees could be waived under CPL 420.35(2‑a) absent the People’s consent.
Holdings
- The period of post‑release supervision was not excessive.
- The court declined to waive the surcharge and fees because the record did not demonstrate a waiver was warranted and the People’s consent was absent.
Key quotations
“Contrary to the defendant's contention, the period of postrelease supervision imposed as part of the sentence was not excessive (see People v Dorfils, 207 AD3d 654, 654; People v Miller, 206 AD3d 940, 940; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).”
“Under the circumstances, and in the absence of the People's consent, we decline to waive the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing in the interest of justice (see People v Robinson, 223 AD3d 917, 917; People v Dorfils, 207 AD3d at 654; People v Miller, 206 AD3d at 940).”
Factual background
Anderson Ortiz, then 19 years old, pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree and was sentenced by the Supreme Court, Queens County, to a term that included post‑release supervision, a mandatory surcharge, and fees.
Procedural history
The defendant was convicted in the Supreme Court, Queens County, and sentenced to a term that included post‑release supervision, a mandatory surcharge, and fees. The defendant appealed the judgment.