People v. Breaux

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Breaux

38 A.D.3d 441, 831 N.Y.S.2d 321

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 441 (People v. Breaux) 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. Breaux, 38 A.D.3d 441, 831 N.Y.S.2d 321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered February 10, 2006, resentencing defendant, upon his conviction, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who was originally sentenced to a term of 8V2 to 17 years, was resentenced after this court remanded for a proper presentence report (24 AD3d 261 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 809 [2006]). We perceive no basis for a further reduction of sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. Defendant’s arguments for a reduced penalty under the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738) are without merit (People v Utsey, 7 NY3d 398 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered February 10, 2006, resentencing defendant, upon his conviction, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who was originally sentenced to a term of 8V2 to 17 years, was resentenced after this court remanded for a proper presentence report (24 AD3d 261 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 809 [2006]). We perceive no basis for a further reduction of sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. Defendant’s arguments for a reduced penalty under the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738) are without merit (People v Utsey, 7 NY3d 398 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 441, 831 N.Y.S.2d 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-breaux-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack