People v. Punter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Punter

41 A.D.3d 320, 837 N.Y.S.2d 563

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

DecidedJune 26, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 320 (People v. Punter) 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. Punter, 41 A.D.3d 320, 837 N.Y.S.2d 563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John N. Byrne, J., at plea; John E Collins, J., at sentence), rendered January 26, 2006, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a [321]*321controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 472 to 9 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

We perceive no basis upon which to reduce defendant’s conviction to a lesser offense, since “we do not consider it appropriate to do so for the purpose of granting dispensations from mandatory sentencing statutes” (People v Velasquez, 25 AD3d 501 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 854 [2006]).

As the People concede, since the crime was committed prior to the effective date of the legislation (Penal 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. Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John N. Byrne, J., at plea; John E Collins, J., at sentence), rendered January 26, 2006, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a [321]*321controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 472 to 9 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

We perceive no basis upon which to reduce defendant’s conviction to a lesser offense, since “we do not consider it appropriate to do so for the purpose of granting dispensations from mandatory sentencing statutes” (People v Velasquez, 25 AD3d 501 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 854 [2006]).

As the People concede, since the crime was committed prior to the effective date of the legislation (Penal 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. Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 320, 837 N.Y.S.2d 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-punter-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack