People v. Fields

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fields

25 A.D.3d 343, 808 N.Y.S.2d 646

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 343 (People v. Fields) 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. Fields, 25 A.D.3d 343, 808 N.Y.S.2d 646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered January 15, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of seven years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant is not entitled, pursuant to the amelioration doctrine of People v Behlog (74 NY2d 237 [1989]), to the benefit of [344]*344the reduced penalty contained in the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738), because the Legislature has expressly stated that the provision at issue applies only to crimes committed after its effective date (People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005]). In any event, the amelioration doctrine does not apply where, as here, a defendant was sentenced before the new law’s effective date (People v Walker, 81 NY2d 661, 666-667 [1993]). We also perceive no basis for reducing the sentence on the ground of excessiveness. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered January 15, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of seven years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant is not entitled, pursuant to the amelioration doctrine of People v Behlog (74 NY2d 237 [1989]), to the benefit of [344]*344the reduced penalty contained in the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738), because the Legislature has expressly stated that the provision at issue applies only to crimes committed after its effective date (People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005]). In any event, the amelioration doctrine does not apply where, as here, a defendant was sentenced before the new law’s effective date (People v Walker, 81 NY2d 661, 666-667 [1993]). We also perceive no basis for reducing the sentence on the ground of excessiveness. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 343, 808 N.Y.S.2d 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fields-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack