People v. Porter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Porter

22 A.D.3d 377, 801 N.Y.S.2d 903

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

DecidedOctober 20, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 377 (People v. Porter) 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. Porter, 22 A.D.3d 377, 801 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J., at plea; John E Collins, J., at sentence), rendered August 12, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

As the Feople concede, since the crime was committed prior to the effective date of the legislation (Fenal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v] [former (1) (e)]) providing for the imposition of a DNA databank fee, that fee should not have been imposed. Since this issue involves the substantive legality of the sentence, it [378]*378survives defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J., at plea; John E Collins, J., at sentence), rendered August 12, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

As the Feople concede, since the crime was committed prior to the effective date of the legislation (Fenal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v] [former (1) (e)]) providing for the imposition of a DNA databank fee, that fee should not have been imposed. Since this issue involves the substantive legality of the sentence, it [378]*378survives defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 377, 801 N.Y.S.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-porter-nyappdiv-2005.