The People v Andrew Jointe
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal sentencing, specifically whether the period of postrelease supervision imposed after a guilty plea to rape in the third degree and attempted sex trafficking of a child was lawful and excessive.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, sentenced the defendant to concurrent determinate prison terms of 3½ years, followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision on both convictions.
The Appellate Division modified the sentence by reducing the period of postrelease supervision on the conviction of attempted sex trafficking of a child from 10 years to 5 years.
The 10-year period of postrelease supervision for attempted sex trafficking of a child was illegal, and the appellate court stated that it could not allow an illegal sentence to stand even though the issue had not been raised before the sentencing court or on appeal.
Background
Andrew Jointe pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree and attempted sex trafficking of a child under a Kings County indictment. He appealed, as limited by his motion, from the sentence imposed on October 25, 2023, arguing that the periods of postrelease supervision were excessive.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed concurrent determinate prison terms of 3½ years and directed that each conviction be followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the 10-year postrelease supervision term attached to the attempted sex trafficking of a child conviction was illegal. It modified the sentence to reduce that period to 5 years and otherwise affirmed, concluding that the postrelease supervision periods, as modified, were not excessive.
Legal Significance
This decision confirms that an appellate court may correct an illegal sentence on its own initiative, even when the issue was not preserved in the trial court and was not raised on appeal. It also reflects the court's authority to modify only the unlawful portion of a sentence while leaving the remainder intact.
A sentencing court cannot impose an unauthorized period of postrelease supervision, and if it does, the Appellate Division will correct the illegality even without an objection, while upholding the rest of the sentence if it is otherwise proper.