People v. Capella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Capella

30 A.D.3d 214, 816 N.Y.S.2d 467

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

DecidedJune 13, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.3d 214 (People v. Capella) 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. Capella, 30 A.D.3d 214, 816 N.Y.S.2d 467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered March 1, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of six years to life and seven years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Regardless of whether or not defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we reject his challenge to his sentence on the drug conviction. Defendant is not entitled, pursuant 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 the Legislature has expressly stated that the provision upon which defendant relies applies only to crimes committed after its effective date (People [215]*215v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005], lv granted 6 NY3d 757 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered March 1, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of six years to life and seven years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Regardless of whether or not defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we reject his challenge to his sentence on the drug conviction. Defendant is not entitled, pursuant 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 the Legislature has expressly stated that the provision upon which defendant relies applies only to crimes committed after its effective date (People [215]*215v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005], lv granted 6 NY3d 757 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 214, 816 N.Y.S.2d 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-capella-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack