People v. Flores

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Flores

124 A.D.3d 536, 998 N.Y.S.2d 628

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2015

Docket14043 1411/99

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 536 (People v. Flores) 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. Flores, 124 A.D.3d 536, 998 N.Y.S.2d 628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara F. Newman, J), entered on or about April 5, 2010, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that substantial justice dictated the denial of resentencing (see e.g. People v Rodriguez, 116 AD3d 639 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1042 [2014]). Among other things, defendant absconded and remained a fugitive for many years, during which time he trafficked in drugs in various states, and engaged in such activity even while he was in federal custody. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the court expressly considered evidence of defendant’s rehabilitation during his most recent period of incarceration, and concluded that it was outweighed by the factors militating against resentencing (see People v Marte, 44 AD3d 442 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 991 [2007]).

Concur — Tom, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara F. Newman, J), entered on or about April 5, 2010, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that substantial justice dictated the denial of resentencing (see e.g. People v Rodriguez, 116 AD3d 639 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1042 [2014]). Among other things, defendant absconded and remained a fugitive for many years, during which time he trafficked in drugs in various states, and engaged in such activity even while he was in federal custody. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the court expressly considered evidence of defendant’s rehabilitation during his most recent period of incarceration, and concluded that it was outweighed by the factors militating against resentencing (see People v Marte, 44 AD3d 442 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 991 [2007]).

Concur — Tom, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 536, 998 N.Y.S.2d 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flores-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack