People v. Grice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grice

29 A.D.3d 819, 813 N.Y.S.2d 909

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 16, 2006·Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his notice of appeal and his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), imposed January 18, 2005, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

“In the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 41[d-l]), the Legislature expressed its intent that, with certain exceptions not applicable herein, the ameliorative provisions of the act were not to be applied to crimes committed before the effective [820] date of the act. The defendant’s crime was committed before the effective date of the act. Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s contention that [he] is entitled to the benefits of the ameliorative provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act” (People v McCray, 27 AD3d 486 [2006]; see People v Torres, 26 AD3d 398 [2006]; cf. People v Goode, 25 AD3d 723 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his notice of appeal and his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), imposed January 18, 2005, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

“In the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 41[d-l]), the Legislature expressed its intent that, with certain exceptions not applicable herein, the ameliorative provisions of the act were not to be applied to crimes committed before the effective [820] date of the act. The defendant’s crime was committed before the effective date of the act. Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s contention that [he] is entitled to the benefits of the ameliorative provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act” (People v McCray, 27 AD3d 486 [2006]; see People v Torres, 26 AD3d 398 [2006]; cf. People v Goode, 25 AD3d 723 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

People v. Grice, 29 A.D.3d 819, 813 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

29 A.D.3d 819 (People v. Grice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related