People v. Beltre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Beltre

23 A.D.3d 300, 805 N.Y.S.2d 305

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.3d 300 (People v. Beltre) 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. Beltre, 23 A.D.3d 300, 805 N.Y.S.2d 305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Lorenzo, J), rendered November 13, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

By waiving his right to appeal, defendant “elect[ed] to foreclose review” (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]) of the length of his lawful sentence. Were we to find that defendant’s argument is not foreclosed, we would find that defendant is not entitled, pursu[301]*301ant to the amelioration doctrine 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, the Legislature negated the amelioration doctrine and expressly provided that the provisions of the new law defendant relies upon apply only to crimes committed after its effective date (People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Lorenzo, J), rendered November 13, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

By waiving his right to appeal, defendant “elect[ed] to foreclose review” (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]) of the length of his lawful sentence. Were we to find that defendant’s argument is not foreclosed, we would find that defendant is not entitled, pursu[301]*301ant to the amelioration doctrine 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, the Legislature negated the amelioration doctrine and expressly provided that the provisions of the new law defendant relies upon apply only to crimes committed after its effective date (People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 300, 805 N.Y.S.2d 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beltre-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack