People v. Peña

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peña

55 A.D.3d 393, 866 N.Y.S.2d 37

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 A.D.3d 393 (People v. Peña) 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. Peña, 55 A.D.3d 393, 866 N.Y.S.2d 37 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for resentencing under the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act (L 2005, ch 643), unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that substantial justice dictated the denial of the application. Defendant’s record of increasingly serious crimes, along with his illegal reentry into the United States and resumption of drug trafficking after being deported for such activity, outweighed evidence of his rehabilitation while incarcerated (see People v Alcaraz, 46 AD3d 253 [2007]). In denying resentencing, the court properly considered the totality of circumstances and did not rely solely on defendant’s advantageous plea bargain (see People v Jones, 50 AD3d 282 [2008]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Catterson, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for resentencing under the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act (L 2005, ch 643), unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that substantial justice dictated the denial of the application. Defendant’s record of increasingly serious crimes, along with his illegal reentry into the United States and resumption of drug trafficking after being deported for such activity, outweighed evidence of his rehabilitation while incarcerated (see People v Alcaraz, 46 AD3d 253 [2007]). In denying resentencing, the court properly considered the totality of circumstances and did not rely solely on defendant’s advantageous plea bargain (see People v Jones, 50 AD3d 282 [2008]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Catterson, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 393, 866 N.Y.S.2d 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pena-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack