People v. Aviles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Aviles

29 A.D.3d 813, 813 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedMay 16, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 813 (People v. Aviles) 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. Aviles, 29 A.D.3d 813, 813 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered January 28, 2005, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“In the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 41[d-l]), the Legislature expressed its intent that, with certain exceptions not applicable herein, the ameliorative provisions of the act were not to be applied to crimes committed before the effective date of the act. The defendant’s crime was committed before the effective date of the act. Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s contention that [he] is entitled to the benefits of the ameliorative provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act” (People v McCray, 27 AD3d 486 [2006]; see People v Torres, 26 AD3d 398 [2006]; cf. People v Goode, 25 AD3d 723 [2006]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered January 28, 2005, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“In the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 41[d-l]), the Legislature expressed its intent that, with certain exceptions not applicable herein, the ameliorative provisions of the act were not to be applied to crimes committed before the effective date of the act. The defendant’s crime was committed before the effective date of the act. Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s contention that [he] is entitled to the benefits of the ameliorative provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act” (People v McCray, 27 AD3d 486 [2006]; see People v Torres, 26 AD3d 398 [2006]; cf. People v Goode, 25 AD3d 723 [2006]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 813, 813 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aviles-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack