People v. Melendez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Melendez

282 A.D.2d 409, 723 N.Y.S.2d 667, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4150

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

DecidedApril 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 409 (People v. Melendez) 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. Melendez, 282 A.D.2d 409, 723 N.Y.S.2d 667, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered January 26, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The photograph of the lineup reveals that the fillers were sufficiently similar to defendant and that there was no substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 US 833).

The procedure under which defendant was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender was not unconstitutional (People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329; Almendarez-Torres v United States, 523 US 224; compare, Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered January 26, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The photograph of the lineup reveals that the fillers were sufficiently similar to defendant and that there was no substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 US 833).

The procedure under which defendant was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender was not unconstitutional (People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329; Almendarez-Torres v United States, 523 US 224; compare, Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 409, 723 N.Y.S.2d 667, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-melendez-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack