People v. Rojas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rojas

39 A.D.3d 259, 833 N.Y.S.2d 70

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

DecidedApril 5, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 259 (People v. Rojas) 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. Rojas, 39 A.D.3d 259, 833 N.Y.S.2d 70 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), entered May 18, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion to be resentenced, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for it to exercise its discretion and determine, either on the current record or on the basis of any additional submissions the parties might make, whether substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied, and, if not, to inform defendant of the new sentence it would impose.

The motion court erred in denying, on the apparent ground of ineligibility, defendant’s motion to be resentenced in accordance with the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act (L 2005, ch 643). Since defendant is a person serving a sentence for an A-II drug felony, he is eligible for resentencing pursuant to the Act, and, as the People concede, he is thus entitled to a remand for further proceedings on the motion as indicated (see People v LaFontaine, 36 AD3d 474 [2007]; People v Arana, 32 AD3d 305 [2006]). As in those cases, we reject as meritless defendant’s contention that the motion should be reassigned to a different Justice, and we decline to reach any other issues. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), entered May 18, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion to be resentenced, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for it to exercise its discretion and determine, either on the current record or on the basis of any additional submissions the parties might make, whether substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied, and, if not, to inform defendant of the new sentence it would impose.

The motion court erred in denying, on the apparent ground of ineligibility, defendant’s motion to be resentenced in accordance with the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act (L 2005, ch 643). Since defendant is a person serving a sentence for an A-II drug felony, he is eligible for resentencing pursuant to the Act, and, as the People concede, he is thus entitled to a remand for further proceedings on the motion as indicated (see People v LaFontaine, 36 AD3d 474 [2007]; People v Arana, 32 AD3d 305 [2006]). As in those cases, we reject as meritless defendant’s contention that the motion should be reassigned to a different Justice, and we decline to reach any other issues. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 259, 833 N.Y.S.2d 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rojas-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack