Opinion
07-27-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Raul IZAGUIRRE, appellant.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, NY (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Andrea M. DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, NY (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Andrea M. DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), imposed June 14, 2012, upon his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, after remittitur from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for resentencing (see Izaguirre v. Lee, 856 F.Supp.2d 551 [E.D.N.Y.] ).
ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.
In 2005, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, for fatally stabbing the victim. He was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of 25 years to be followed by a period of 5 years of postrelease supervision. On his prior appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment of conviction (see People v. Izaguirre, 51 A.D.3d 946, 856 N.Y.S.2d 886 ). Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied (see People v. Izaguirre, 13 N.Y.3d 860, 891 N.Y.S.2d 694, 920 N.E.2d 99 ).
Thereafter, the defendant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, arguing, inter alia, that his sentence was unconstitutionally vindictive. The District Court determined that a writ of habeas corpus shall issue unless, within 90 days, the defendant was “resentenced before a judge other than the one who delivered” the initial sentence (Izaguirre v. Lee, 856 F.Supp.2d 551, 580 [E.D.N.Y.] ). Upon remittitur, the defendant was resentenced by a different judge to a determinate term of imprisonment of 25 years to be followed by a period of 5 years of postrelease supervision.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the resentence was not presumptively vindictive, but rather a proper exercise of discretion by the Supreme Court (see People v. Young, 94 N.Y.2d 171, 178, 701 N.Y.S.2d 309, 723 N.E.2d 58 ; People v. Lawrence, 44 A.D.3d 967, 843 N.Y.S.2d 515 ). Further, the resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Izaguirre, 51 A.D.3d at 946, 856 N.Y.S.2d 886 ; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, SGROI and MALTESE, JJ., concur.