People v. TaverasPeople v. Taveras
Although we decline to disturb the proposed resentence under the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2005, ch 643, § 1), which reduces the original sentence to 7 1/2 years, we find the original sentence excessive to the extent that it directed the sentences to run consecutively. Because of the procedural posture of this case, the rule that resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act does not permit the issue of concurrent versus consecutive sentencing to be revisited (see People v Vaughan, 62 AD3d 122 [2009]) does not apply. We have before us, not only the appeal from the proposed resentence, but defendant’s direct appeal from the original judgment of conviction. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from that conviction, the appeal has never been dismissed, and we deem defendant to have perfected that appeal, under the circumstances presented, by way of his appeal from the proposed resentence (see