People v. Martin

89 A.D.3d 1039, 933 N.Y.2d 557
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 22, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for resentencing solely upon the ground that his status as a reincarcerated parole violator made him ineligible for relief under the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act, which is codified by CPL 440.46. However, “prisoners who have been paroled, and then reincarcerated for violating their parole, are not for that reason barred from seeking relief under the statute” (People v Paulin, 17 NY3d 238, 242 [2011]; see People v Vidal, 87 AD3d 1085 [2011]; People v Santiago, 87 AD3d 1077 [2011]; People v Howard, 85 AD3d 1202, 1202-1203 [2011]; People v Phillips, 82 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2011]). Accordingly, as the People correctly concede, the order appealed from must be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 440.46. Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Martin, 89 A.D.3d 1039, 933 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 1039 (People v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Ashby
99 A.D.3d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Lankford
35 Misc. 3d 418 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)