People v. Harrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harrison

2017 NY Slip Op 321, 146 A.D.3d 900, 44 N.Y.S.3d 767

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2017

Docket2016-02585

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 321 (People v. Harrison) 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. Harrison, 2017 NY Slip Op 321, 146 A.D.3d 900, 44 N.Y.S.3d 767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), dated February 24, 2016, which denied his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on April 3, 1997.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46, in light of the defendant’s institutional and criminal record, which included 12 tier III infractions and 32 tier II infractions, as well as numerous parole violations, some of which were based upon convictions of new crimes (see People v Duke, 132 AD3d 893 [2015]).

Dillon, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), dated February 24, 2016, which denied his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on April 3, 1997.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46, in light of the defendant’s institutional and criminal record, which included 12 tier III infractions and 32 tier II infractions, as well as numerous parole violations, some of which were based upon convictions of new crimes (see People v Duke, 132 AD3d 893 [2015]).

Dillon, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 321, 146 A.D.3d 900, 44 N.Y.S.3d 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harrison-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack