People v. Peterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peterson

88 A.D.3d 1026, 930 N.Y.2d 497

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 1026 (People v. Peterson) 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. Peterson, 88 A.D.3d 1026, 930 N.Y.2d 497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Peters, J.P.

In 1997, defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison. In 2010, defendant made an application to be resentenced under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009. Following a hearing, County Court denied defendant’s application. Defendant now appeals.

The Drug Law Reform Act provides, in relevant part, that eligible defendants shall be resentenced unless, upon consideration of all relevant factors, “substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23; see CPL 440.46 [3]; People v La Porte, 53 AD3d 984, 985 [2008]). County Court is vested with discretion to determine whether substantial justice dictates denial of a defendant’s application for resentencing (see People v La Porte, 53 AD3d at 985; People v Rivers, 43 AD3d 1247, 1247 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 993 [2007]). We find that the court providently exercised its discretion and did not, as defendant contends, inappropriately shift the burden of proof (see People v Colon, 77 AD3d 849, 850 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 952 [2010]; People v La Porte, 53 AD3d at 985; People v Rivers, 43 AD3d at 1247; compare People v Beasley, 47 AD3d 639, 640 [2008]). The court appropriately considered defendant’s positive institutional disciplinary record and participation in programs, but also noted that defendant has a significant criminal history linked to his involvement with drugs, including a conviction of manslaughter in the first degree. Moreover, the record reflects that defendant was on parole on a drug-related offense when he committed the present offense. Given these circumstances, we find no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determination that resentencing was not warranted (see People v Rivera, 84 AD3d 980 [2011]; People v La Porte, 53 AD3d at 985; People v Rivers, 43 AD3d at 1247).

Rose, Lahtinen, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed.

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

Peters, J.P.

In 1997, defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison. In 2010, defendant made an application to be resentenced under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009. Following a hearing, County Court denied defendant’s application. Defendant now appeals.

The Drug Law Reform Act provides, in relevant part, that eligible defendants shall be resentenced unless, upon consideration of all relevant factors, “substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23; see CPL 440.46 [3]; People v La Porte, 53 AD3d 984, 985 [2008]). County Court is vested with discretion to determine whether substantial justice dictates denial of a defendant’s application for resentencing (see People v La Porte, 53 AD3d at 985; People v Rivers, 43 AD3d 1247, 1247 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 993 [2007]). We find that the court providently exercised its discretion and did not, as defendant contends, inappropriately shift the burden of proof (see People v Colon, 77 AD3d 849, 850 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 952 [2010]; People v La Porte, 53 AD3d at 985; People v Rivers, 43 AD3d at 1247; compare People v Beasley, 47 AD3d 639, 640 [2008]). The court appropriately considered defendant’s positive institutional disciplinary record and participation in programs, but also noted that defendant has a significant criminal history linked to his involvement with drugs, including a conviction of manslaughter in the first degree. Moreover, the record reflects that defendant was on parole on a drug-related offense when he committed the present offense. Given these circumstances, we find no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determination that resentencing was not warranted (see People v Rivera, 84 AD3d 980 [2011]; People v La Porte, 53 AD3d at 985; People v Rivers, 43 AD3d at 1247).

Rose, Lahtinen, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 1026, 930 N.Y.2d 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peterson-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack