Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/rli_plsny/plsny.org/wp-content/plugins/plsny-configuration/plsny-configuration.php on line 194
People v. Jessie Blount, Case No. 10-100, (Chautauqua Co. Ct. ) - PLSNY
Skip to content

People v. Jessie Blount, Case No. 10-100, (Chautauqua Co. Ct. )

While serving a sentence at Lakeview C.F., Jessie Blount was charged with aggravated harassment of an employee (P.L. §240.32). He pled guilty in exchange for a promise that the time between the commission of the offense and the sentencing would be credited to the new sentence. With the exception of 50 days, the two years that had passed between the incident and sentencing, had been credited to Mr. Blount’s prior undischarged sentence. Initially, DOCS was unwilling to give Mr. Blount any additional credit against his new sentence for time spent in custody between the incident and the sentence. After negotiations with counsel’s office, DOCS decided to treat the new sentence as one that had been imposed to run concurrent to the previously imposed sentence. Prior sentence credit resulted in an earlier parole eligibility date. DOCS also corrected Mr. Blount’s legal date computation by giving him a conditional release date which had inexplicably not been given to him. Mr. Blount was denied parole and conditional release. DOCS was unwilling to give Mr. Blount more than 50 days credit against his maximum expiration date.

On April 29, 2011, PLS filed an application with the sentencing court to have Mr. Blount’s sentence imposed nunc pro tunc to the date of the incident (October 21, 2008). There being no objection from the District Attorney of Chautauqua County, the court modified the sentence to be imposed nunc pro tunc. However, because the sentencing minutes did not say that the sentences were concurrent, DOCS took the position that the sentences were to run consecutively and as a result, Mr. Blount derived no benefit from the change in sentence.

On June 15, 2011, PLS filed an application with the sentencing court asking to have Mr. Blount’s sentence imposed nunc pro tunc to the date of the incident and to run concurrently with the prior undischarged sentence. There was no opposition from the District Attorney to the clarified the sentence. On 7/7/2011, a new sentence and commitment order was sent to DOCS indicating the sentence was nunc pro tunc to October 21, 2008 and that the sentence was to run concurrently to the prior undischarged sentence.

As a result of this motion, Mr. Blount’s maximum expiration date changed from 9/2/13 to 10/20/11.