People v. Adeola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Adeola

82 A.D.3d 1258, 919 N.Y.2d 369

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 29, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1258 (People v. Adeola) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Adeola, 82 A.D.3d 1258, 919 N.Y.2d 369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738, § 23). The Supreme Court properly considered, among other things, the defendant’s status as a high-level member of a drug trafficking enterprise. Under the circumstances, substantial justice dictated the denial of the motion (see People v Winfield, 59 AD3d 747, 748 [2009]). Florio, J.P, Dickerson, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738, § 23). The Supreme Court properly considered, among other things, the defendant’s status as a high-level member of a drug trafficking enterprise. Under the circumstances, substantial justice dictated the denial of the motion (see People v Winfield, 59 AD3d 747, 748 [2009]). Florio, J.P, Dickerson, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1258, 919 N.Y.2d 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-adeola-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack