People v. Ashby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ashby

99 A.D.3d 931, 951 N.Y.2d 911

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 17, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The defendant contends, and the People correctly concede, that contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, his status as a reincarcerated parole violator did not render him ineligible to apply for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009, codified in CPL 440.46 (see People v Paulin, 17 NY3d 238, 241-242 [2011]; People v Ashton, 95 AD3d 1137 [2012]; People v Cobb, 90 AD3d 779 [2011]; People v Rodriguez, 89 AD3d 1042 [2011]; People v Martin, 89 AD3d 1039 [2011]). Accordingly, the order appealed from must be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 440.46. Rivera, J.E, Chambers, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant contends, and the People correctly concede, that contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, his status as a reincarcerated parole violator did not render him ineligible to apply for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009, codified in CPL 440.46 (see People v Paulin, 17 NY3d 238, 241-242 [2011]; People v Ashton, 95 AD3d 1137 [2012]; People v Cobb, 90 AD3d 779 [2011]; People v Rodriguez, 89 AD3d 1042 [2011]; People v Martin, 89 AD3d 1039 [2011]). Accordingly, the order appealed from must be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 440.46. Rivera, J.E, Chambers, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

People v. Ashby, 99 A.D.3d 931, 951 N.Y.2d 911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

99 A.D.3d 931 (People v. Ashby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related