People v. Daniels

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Daniels

833 N.E.2d 704, 5 N.Y.3d 738, 800 N.Y.S.2d 369

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 14, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 833 N.E.2d 704 (People v. Daniels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Daniels, 833 N.E.2d 704, 5 N.Y.3d 738, 800 N.Y.S.2d 369 (N.Y. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be af *740 firmed. Defendants seek to have their persistent felony offender sentences (Penal Law § 70.10; CPL 400.20) vacated. In contrast to People v Rivera (5 NY3d 61 [2005]), defendants did not preserve their claims under Apprendi v New Jersey (530 US 466 [2000]). The prosecution argues that this failure precludes our review of the issue, while defendants contend that an alleged Apprendi violation goes to the mode of proceedings and does not require preservation. Even if an Apprendi violation may be raised as an unpreserved mode of proceedings error (see People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329, 335 [2001]), defendants would not prevail on the merits (see Rivera).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

In each case: Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be af *740 firmed. Defendants seek to have their persistent felony offender sentences (Penal Law § 70.10; CPL 400.20) vacated. In contrast to People v Rivera (5 NY3d 61 [2005]), defendants did not preserve their claims under Apprendi v New Jersey (530 US 466 [2000]). The prosecution argues that this failure precludes our review of the issue, while defendants contend that an alleged Apprendi violation goes to the mode of proceedings and does not require preservation. Even if an Apprendi violation may be raised as an unpreserved mode of proceedings error (see People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329, 335 [2001]), defendants would not prevail on the merits (see Rivera).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

In each case: Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

833 N.E.2d 704, 5 N.Y.3d 738, 800 N.Y.S.2d 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-daniels-ny-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack