People v. Marti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marti

81 A.D.3d 418, 916 N.Y.S.2d 769

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 81 A.D.3d 418 (People v. Marti) 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. Marti, 81 A.D.3d 418, 916 N.Y.S.2d 769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), entered on or about July 27, 2006, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously affirmed.

The 2009 Drug Law Reform Act (L 2009, ch 56), like its predecessors, provides that an eligible inmate’s application for resentencing “shall” be granted, unless “substantial justice” dictates that it be denied (CPL 440.46 [3] [incorporating by reference provisions of the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 23)]). The determination is discretionary (see People v Gonzalez, 29 AD3d 400 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 867 [2006]) and is made on an individualized assessment of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including, among other things, a defendant’s recidivism (see e.g. People v Ciriaco, 46 AD3d 374 [2007]) or misconduct while incarcerated (id.). In light of the facts presented here, the court properly denied the application. While the court misspoke in reciting the applicable standards [419]*419for resentencing, the decision and order makes clear that the court did, in fact, apply the correct standards in determining defendant’s application.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining contentions. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, De-Grasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), entered on or about July 27, 2006, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously affirmed.

The 2009 Drug Law Reform Act (L 2009, ch 56), like its predecessors, provides that an eligible inmate’s application for resentencing “shall” be granted, unless “substantial justice” dictates that it be denied (CPL 440.46 [3] [incorporating by reference provisions of the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 23)]). The determination is discretionary (see People v Gonzalez, 29 AD3d 400 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 867 [2006]) and is made on an individualized assessment of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including, among other things, a defendant’s recidivism (see e.g. People v Ciriaco, 46 AD3d 374 [2007]) or misconduct while incarcerated (id.). In light of the facts presented here, the court properly denied the application. While the court misspoke in reciting the applicable standards [419]*419for resentencing, the decision and order makes clear that the court did, in fact, apply the correct standards in determining defendant’s application.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining contentions. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, De-Grasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.3d 418, 916 N.Y.S.2d 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marti-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack