People v. Flowers

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that a resentencing court's imposition of the same sentence after a successful appeal did not constitute a mode-of-proceedings error and therefore had to be preserved by objection. The court further held that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object because the defendant's challenge to the identical sentence was not a winning argument. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's order.

Holdings

1. The reimposition of the same sentence did not constitute a mode-of-proceedings error or an illegal sentence readily discernable from the trial record; therefore, defendant was required to preserve the claim and, having failed to do so, the claim was unreviewable.
2. No presumption of vindictiveness or improper criteria applies merely because a resentencing court imposes the same sentence after appellate remand. The presumption of vindictiveness applies when a defendant receives a greater sentence after reversal, not when the same sentence is reimposed.
3. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object because the omitted objection had little or no chance of success and was not a winning argument under existing law.
4. The record did not show that the resentencing court relied on dismissed charges or acted vindictively. The court permissibly considered evidence relevant to the weapon-possession conviction and defendant's criminal history.

Questions Presented

1. Whether reimposition of the same sentence after a successful appeal constituted a mode-of-proceedings error exempt from the preservation requirement.
2. Whether a presumption of vindictiveness or improper sentencing criteria applies when a court imposes an identical, rather than greater, sentence after appellate remand.
3. Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the resentencing court's reimposition of the same sentence.

Disposition

affirmed