Relates to the crime of aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate

Sections two and three of this bill amends paragraphs (a) and (b) of Penal Law section 70.25(5) to provide that the sentence for a conviction of aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate as a crime must run consecutively to any previously imposed or prospectively imposed sentence when the person convicted was confined in a detention facility at the time of the assault for which he or she was convicted.

Section four of this bill amends Penal Law section 70.25(5)(c), to provide that the sentence for a conviction for aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate may run consecutively if the Court finds that in the interest of justice, the sentence should run concurrently. When a Court makes this finding, the Court must set forth on the record the reasons for imposing a concurrent sentence.

Section five of this bill provides that this act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law, provided that the amendments to paragraphs (a) and (b) of subdivision 5 of section 70.25 of the penal law made by section two of this act shall be subject to the expiration and reversion of such paragraphs pursuant to subdivision d of section 74 of chapter 3 of the laws of 1995, as amended, when upon such date the provisions of section three of this act shall take effect.

Justification

Under current New York State law, protections for Correction officers address some of the potential dangers facing New York's boldest. These protections, however, are drastically undercut thanks to a lack of uniform sentencing procedures for crimes committed against them. New York State already provides for the potential of consecutive sentencing in certain penal areas of the law, specifically those involving assaults on corrections employees by inmates, while other felonies are not included within the requirement.

Under current statute, aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate can be, and for the vast majority of cases have been, applied through the form of a concurrent sentence. This is treated separately and distinctly from cases involving other felonies committed against corrections employees by inmates. Such sentences are carried out concurrently over the course of any previously applied sentence to an inmate.

These actions are by their very definition, separate and distinguishable acts from the particular crime that placed am inmate within the corrections system. By allowing for the imposition of concurrent sentences, instead of consecutive sentences, for serious offenses and felonies committed by inmates, the law effectively removes any protections for corrections officers and any deterrents against the abhorrent actions that these officers may be subjected to in the line of duty.

While concurrent sentences are typically utilized in instances relating to a single act or event, the instigation of another act should be treated and addressed as a separate act. By requiring that any sentence for felonies for aggravated harassment against a correction employee be served consecutively, the state can provide a means of reasonable deterrent against actions that are already deemed illegal under the current law. Any deviation from such a requirement, if it is established that it is done in the interest of justice, would need to be put forth by the court on the record.

Prior legislative history

New bill

Fiscal implications

Undetermined

Effective date

This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law, provided that the amendments to paragraphs (a) and (b) of subdivision 5 of section 70.25 of the penal law made by section two of this act shall be subject to the expiration and reversion of such paragraphs pursuant to subdivision d of section 74 of chapter 3 of the laws of 1995, as amended, when upon such date the provisions of section three of this act shall take effect.