People v. Luciano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Luciano

60 A.D.3d 1329, 876 N.Y.S.2d 258

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 1329 (People v. Luciano) 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. Luciano, 60 A.D.3d 1329, 876 N.Y.S.2d 258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a [1330]*1330new sentence of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered October 11, 2006 imposed upon defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. Defendant was resentenced pursuant to the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act upon his 2006 conviction.

It is hereby ordered that the sentence so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a new sentence upon his 2006 conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]) imposed pursuant to the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act ([DLRA-2] L 2005, ch 643, § 1). We conclude that County Court erred in failing to set forth written findings of fact and the reasons for its determination to impose a determinate term of imprisonment of six years and a five-year period of postrelease supervision (see People v Peterson, 50 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2008]). We therefore reverse the sentence and remit the matter to County Court to determine defendant’s application in compliance with DLRA-2.

In view of our determination, we do not address defendant’s remaining contentions. Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a [1330]*1330new sentence of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered October 11, 2006 imposed upon defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. Defendant was resentenced pursuant to the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act upon his 2006 conviction.

It is hereby ordered that the sentence so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a new sentence upon his 2006 conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]) imposed pursuant to the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act ([DLRA-2] L 2005, ch 643, § 1). We conclude that County Court erred in failing to set forth written findings of fact and the reasons for its determination to impose a determinate term of imprisonment of six years and a five-year period of postrelease supervision (see People v Peterson, 50 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2008]). We therefore reverse the sentence and remit the matter to County Court to determine defendant’s application in compliance with DLRA-2.

In view of our determination, we do not address defendant’s remaining contentions. Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 1329, 876 N.Y.S.2d 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-luciano-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack