Opinion

Matter of Parker v. Annucci

  • 130 A.D.3d 1115
  • 12 N.Y.S.3d 650
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Jul 2, 2015
Status
Published
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 74.7%

The opinion

State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 2, 2015 519620

________________________________

In the Matter of DEMETRIUS

PARKER,

Appellant,

v

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting

Commissioner of Corrections

and Community Supervision,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: May 5, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________

Demetrius Parker, Sonyea, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.),

entered September 14, 2015 in Sullivan County, which dismissed

petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78, to review a determination of the Erie County Sheriff

calculating petitioner's jail time credit.

In 2006, petitioner was convicted of criminal possession of

a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal

possession of a weapon in the third degree. He was sentenced

concurrently to two years in prison on both charges, to be

followed by postrelease supervision of two and three years,

respectively. Petitioner was received into the custody of the

Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter

DOCCS) on July 14, 2006.

-2- 519620

Thereafter, he was released by DOCCS to postrelease

supervision on two separate occasions and both times he was

declared delinquent. At the time of his second release in 2009,

the postrelease supervision maximum expiration date on his 2006

sentences was June 14, 2011. After the second declaration of

delinquency was issued on April 1, 2010, petitioner served time

in local custody and no final revocation hearing was held.

Consequently, his 2006 sentences continued to run uninterrupted

and he completed serving them on June 14, 2011.

On June 21, 2011, petitioner was sentenced to five years in

prison and five years of postrelease supervision upon his

conviction of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the

second degree. He was received by DOCCS on July 5, 2011 at which

time he was given 331 days of jail time credit toward his 2011

sentence. This credit, however, was subsequently reduced to 20

days after it was discovered that petitioner had already received

credit for certain time periods, specifically April 8, 2010 to

April 18, 2010 and August 19, 2010 to June 14, 2011, toward his

2006 sentences. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78

proceeding challenging the calculation of his jail time credit

and, following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the

petition. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. Penal Law § 70.30 (3) provides, in relevant

part, that jail time credit "shall be calculated from the date

custody under the charge commenced to the date the sentence

commences and shall not include any time that is credited against

the term or maximum term of any previously imposed sentence or

period of post-release supervision." Here, the time periods that

petitioner was in local custody between March 15, 2009 and June

14, 2011 were credited toward the postrelease supervision

segments of his 2006 sentences, resulting in his completion of

the sentences on June 14, 2011. Inasmuch as petitioner had

already received credit for these time periods, they should not

have been counted toward his 2011 sentence as well (see Matter of

Brown v Apple, 119 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2014]; Matter of Booker v

Laffin, 98 AD3d 1213, 1213-1214 [2012]). Therefore, we find that

the calculation of petitioner's jail time credit was proper.

-3- 519620

Petitioner's reliance on Matter of Sparago v New York State

Bd. of Parole (132 AD2d 881 [1987], mod 71 NY2d 943 [1988]) does

not compel a contrary result as that case is factually

distinguishable from this case. Finally, we have considered

petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be

unpersuasive.

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.