People v. Gomez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gomez

100 A.D.3d 1104, 952 N.Y.S.2d 909

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 1104 (People v. Gomez) 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. Gomez, 100 A.D.3d 1104, 952 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), entered January 24, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46.

[1105]*1105After pleading guilty in 2008 to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a determinate prison term of eight years. In 2010, he moved for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 (see CPL 440.46), which permits individuals who are serving indeterminate sentences for certain felony drug offenses committed prior to January 13, 2005 to apply for a reduced determinate sentence. County Court denied the motion based upon the uncontroverted facts that defendant’s conviction is based upon a 2007 offense, and that he received a determinate, rather than indeterminate, sentence. Defendant appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, we agree. Therefore, the order is affirmed and counsel’s request for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Peters, BJ., Mercure, Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.

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

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), entered January 24, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46.

[1105]*1105After pleading guilty in 2008 to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a determinate prison term of eight years. In 2010, he moved for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 (see CPL 440.46), which permits individuals who are serving indeterminate sentences for certain felony drug offenses committed prior to January 13, 2005 to apply for a reduced determinate sentence. County Court denied the motion based upon the uncontroverted facts that defendant’s conviction is based upon a 2007 offense, and that he received a determinate, rather than indeterminate, sentence. Defendant appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, we agree. Therefore, the order is affirmed and counsel’s request for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Peters, BJ., Mercure, Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 1104, 952 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gomez-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack