People v. Aguste

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Aguste

23 A.D.3d 306, 804 N.Y.S.2d 244

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.3d 306 (People v. Aguste) 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. Aguste, 23 A.D.3d 306, 804 N.Y.S.2d 244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered May 5, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant is not entitled, pursuant to the amelioration doc[307]*307trine of People v Behlog (74 NY2d 237 [1989]), to the benefit of the reduced penalty contained in the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738) because he was sentenced before the statute’s effective date (People v Walker, 81 NY2d 661, 666-667 [1993]). Moreover, this Court has also concluded that the Legislature negated the amelioration doctrine by providing that the provisions of the new law upon which defendant relies apply only to crimes committed after the effective date of the section of the act containing those provisions (People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered May 5, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant is not entitled, pursuant to the amelioration doc[307]*307trine of People v Behlog (74 NY2d 237 [1989]), to the benefit of the reduced penalty contained in the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738) because he was sentenced before the statute’s effective date (People v Walker, 81 NY2d 661, 666-667 [1993]). Moreover, this Court has also concluded that the Legislature negated the amelioration doctrine by providing that the provisions of the new law upon which defendant relies apply only to crimes committed after the effective date of the section of the act containing those provisions (People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 306, 804 N.Y.S.2d 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aguste-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack