People v. Delossantos

31 A.D.3d 575, 818 N.Y.S.2d 264
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 11, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 31 A.D.3d 575 (People v. Delossantos) 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. Delossantos, 31 A.D.3d 575, 818 N.Y.S.2d 264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), imposed January 30, 2003, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of seven years to life imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant, who was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, a class A-II felony, seeks resentencing under the provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738; hereinafter the DLRA). With exceptions not pertinent here, the DLRA itself does not permit retroactive application of its provisions to persons who committed crimes prior to its effective date of January 13, 2005 (see People v Dickerson, 28 AD3d 787 [2006]; People v Mann, 28 AD3d 791 [2006]). The defendant took and perfected this appeal prior to the October 29, 2005, effective date of a post-DLRA statute—L 2005, ch 643. The latter statute, in effect, permits the retroactive application of the new sentencing structure of the DLRA to defendants convicted of class A-II felonies (see People v Dickerson, supra; People v Mann, supra). However, the defendant must follow the procedure of L 2005, ch 643, which requires, inter alia, that he apply, on notice to the District Attorney, for resentencing in the court which imposed the original sentence. That court must then make a determination of that application, according to the procedures detailed in L 2005, ch 643, subject to appellate review according to the terms of the new statute. Miller, J.P., Adams, Goldstein and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Faison
41 A.D.3d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Opharrow
41 A.D.3d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Warren
41 A.D.3d 745 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Pertillar
37 A.D.3d 740 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 A.D.3d 575, 818 N.Y.S.2d 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-delossantos-nyappdiv-2006.