People v. Melvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Melvin

279 A.D.2d 481, 718 N.Y.S.2d 409, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 130

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 481 (People v. Melvin) 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. Melvin, 279 A.D.2d 481, 718 N.Y.S.2d 409, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered March 1, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The certificate of conviction produced by the People in this case was sufficient to establish that the defendant was a second felony offender (see, CPL 60.60 [1]; People v Parsons, 84 AD2d 510, affd 55 NY2d 858). “Unlike the situation in People v Van Buren (82 NY2d 878), where the certificate of conviction produced by the People identified the previously convicted individual by nothing more than name, in this case the evidence offered by the People identified [the] defendant by name, [and by] date of birth” (People v Richards, 266 AD2d 714, 715-716). Thus, the defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender. Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered March 1, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The certificate of conviction produced by the People in this case was sufficient to establish that the defendant was a second felony offender (see, CPL 60.60 [1]; People v Parsons, 84 AD2d 510, affd 55 NY2d 858). “Unlike the situation in People v Van Buren (82 NY2d 878), where the certificate of conviction produced by the People identified the previously convicted individual by nothing more than name, in this case the evidence offered by the People identified [the] defendant by name, [and by] date of birth” (People v Richards, 266 AD2d 714, 715-716). Thus, the defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender. Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 481, 718 N.Y.S.2d 409, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-melvin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack