Opinion
July 12, 1967
Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 17, 1966, affirmed. Defendant's sole argument in this court is that section 2189-a of the Penal Law, insofar as it provides for a one day to life sentence for certain sex offenses, is unconstitutional because it makes no provision for a full "due process" hearing. This same argument was advanced and rejected in People v. Bailey ( 28 A.D.2d 126) and People v. Leisen ( 28 A.D.2d 926) decided herewith. Moreover, unlike the defendants in the Bailey and Leisen cases, the defendant at bar was sentenced for specified and concurrent terms for each of his sexual offenses, not for one day to life. These sentences were upheld on appeal against the claim, inter alia, that they were excessive (see People v. Jiggetts, 23 A.D.2d 967). In other words, assuming there is merit to the argument that section 2189-a violates the constitutional standards of due process (and the Bailey and Leisen cases hold otherwise), defendant has not shown he has been prejudiced thereby (cf. People v. Tyson, 15 N.Y.2d 866; People ex rel. Keitt v. McMann, 18 N.Y.2d 257). Beldock, P.J., Christ, Brennan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.