17 N.Y.3d 297
NY2011Background
- Acevedo was convicted in 2006 for drug offenses and sentenced as a second felony drug offender (SFDO) with concurrent terms; his 2001 sentence for attempted robbery lacked a mandatory PRS term.
- In 2008 Acevedo was resentenced on the 2001 conviction nunc pro tunc, with PRS, after the People consented under Penal Law § 70.85.
- Acevedo then moved in 2009 to vacate the 2006 SFDO predicate, arguing the 2001 sentence postdated the 2006 offense and thus could not serve as a predicate.
- Collado’s 2005 SFDO sentence and its predicate (2000 attempted robbery) had PRS omitted; Sparber remanded for resentencing to cure the omission.
- In 2009 Collado was resentenced on the 2000 predicate nunc pro tunc to 2000, and the 2005 sentence was resentenced with PRS; the predicate status was challenged.
- Appellate Division reversed in both cases, holding Sparber resentencing could erase predicate status; the Court of Appeals granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sparber relief can affect predicate felony status. | People: Sparber cures PRS omission, not predicate status. | Acevedo/Collado: Resentencing should erase defective predicate and negate eligibility. | Sparber relief cannot be used to defeat predicate felony status. |
| Whether resentencing after the commission of a later felony can alter predicate status for the earlier conviction. | People: Original sentence date remains controlling for predicate purposes. | Defendants: Resentencing postdates the later felony should negate predicate utility. | Original sentence date controls; later resentence cannot negate predicate status. |
| Whether the proper remedy was to reinstate the original sentences and remand for proper pronouncement of PRS. | People: Remittal and resentence cure the procedural defect. | Defendants: Remand voids predicate status for future prosecutions. | Remedies do not void predicate status; resentence remedies do not yield predicate negation. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Sparber, 10 N.Y.3d 457 (2008) (remedy for failure to pronounce PRS is to vacate and resentence)
- People v Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198 (2010) (addressing Sparber remittal and relief scope)
- People v Lingle, 16 N.Y.3d 621 (2011) (clarifies remittal for proper PRS pronouncement in Sparber context)
- People v Bell, 73 N.Y.2d 153 (1989) (reversal/vacatur of a prior conviction determines SFDO status)
- People v Robles, 251 A.D.2d 20 (1998) (prior conviction status for predicate felon determination)
- People v Garner, 10 N.Y.3d 358 (2008) (remittal for resentencing to cure erroneous pronouncements)