People v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Murray

82 A.D.3d 794, 917 N.Y.2d 910

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 794 (People v. Murray) 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. Murray, 82 A.D.3d 794, 917 N.Y.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In 2003 the defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy in the second degree (Penal Law § 105.15) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and was sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment. The crimes arose from the same general set of circumstances. In 2009, the defendant moved for resentencing on both convictions pursuant to CPL 440.46. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion with respect to his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, but found that it was unauthorized under CPL 440.46, which pertains only to sentences imposed for violations of certain crimes under Penal Law article 220, to resentence the defendant on his conviction of conspiracy in the second degree. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.

By the clear terms of CPL 440.46, a court’s authority to resentence eligible inmates convicted of a class B drug felony is limited to that felony and class C, D, or E felony offenses defined in Penal Law articles 220 and 221 on which the sentences were imposed at the same time or were included in the same order of commitment (see CPL 440.46 [2]). It does not extend to convictions of other crimes, such as conspiracy in the second degree (cf. People v Diaz, 68 AD3d 497, 498 [2009]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P, Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

In 2003 the defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy in the second degree (Penal Law § 105.15) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and was sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment. The crimes arose from the same general set of circumstances. In 2009, the defendant moved for resentencing on both convictions pursuant to CPL 440.46. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion with respect to his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, but found that it was unauthorized under CPL 440.46, which pertains only to sentences imposed for violations of certain crimes under Penal Law article 220, to resentence the defendant on his conviction of conspiracy in the second degree. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.

By the clear terms of CPL 440.46, a court’s authority to resentence eligible inmates convicted of a class B drug felony is limited to that felony and class C, D, or E felony offenses defined in Penal Law articles 220 and 221 on which the sentences were imposed at the same time or were included in the same order of commitment (see CPL 440.46 [2]). It does not extend to convictions of other crimes, such as conspiracy in the second degree (cf. People v Diaz, 68 AD3d 497, 498 [2009]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P, Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 794, 917 N.Y.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murray-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack