People v. Mangiapane

87 A.D.2d 851, 449 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16324
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 12, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 87 A.D.2d 851 (People v. Mangiapane) 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. Mangiapane, 87 A.D.2d 851, 449 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jaspan, J.), imposed May 1, 1981, upon his adjudication as a second felony offender. Sentence affirmed. The sentence on the predicate felony was imposed December 14,1970, less than 10 years before November 19, 1980, the date of the commission of the felony of which the defendant pleaded to on March 6,1981. The defendant asserts that the delay of almost six months between the date of his plea, June 15,1970, on the predicate felony, and the date of sentence on said predicate felony on December 14, 1970, resulted in the sentence, and thereby, his second felony offender status being invalid. We find that the defendant waived the delay in sentencing on the predicate felony at the time of his plea, June 15, 1970. The sentencing requirements in effect at the time of the plea and sentencing on the predicate felony provided: “any delay may be waived by the defendant” (Code Grim Pro, § 472). The defendant also argues that section 70.06 of the Penal Law, as applied to him, is an ex post facto law and, therefore, unconstitutional. His basis for this contention is that he received a heavier sentence as a second felony offender and that the predicate felony conviction, which served as the foundation therefor under the provisions of the challenged statute, was obtained prior to the enactment of said statute. We cannot agree that these circumstances render the statute an ex post facto law as applied to defendant because the increased punishment was inflicted for the present crime only and was not an additional penalty for the prior offense (People v Pray, 50 ÁD2d 987). Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Abramov
172 Misc. 2d 186 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
People v. Turner
137 A.D.2d 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Pendergrass
115 A.D.2d 497 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Champelle v. Coombe
567 F. Supp. 345 (S.D. New York, 1983)
People v. Aiello
93 A.D.2d 864 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
People v. Santana
117 Misc. 2d 1016 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
People v. Leston
117 Misc. 2d 712 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
People v. Dippolito
88 A.D.2d 211 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 A.D.2d 851, 449 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mangiapane-nyappdiv-1982.