People v. Sherwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sherwood

25 A.D.3d 444, 808 N.Y.S.2d 200

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.3d 444 (People v. Sherwood) 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. Sherwood, 25 A.D.3d 444, 808 N.Y.S.2d 200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J., at plea; Lewis Bart Stone, J., at sentence), rendered August 11, 2004, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant is not entitled, pursuant to the amelioration doctrine of People v Behlog (74 NY2d 237 [1989]), to the benefit of the reduced penalty contained in the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738), because the Legislature has expressly stated that the provision upon which defendant relies applies only to crimes committed after its effective date (People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005]). In any event, the amelioration doctrine does not apply where, as here, a defendant was sentenced before the new law’s effective date (People v Walker, 81 NY2d 661, 666-667 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J., at plea; Lewis Bart Stone, J., at sentence), rendered August 11, 2004, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant is not entitled, pursuant to the amelioration doctrine of People v Behlog (74 NY2d 237 [1989]), to the benefit of the reduced penalty contained in the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738), because the Legislature has expressly stated that the provision upon which defendant relies applies only to crimes committed after its effective date (People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005]). In any event, the amelioration doctrine does not apply where, as here, a defendant was sentenced before the new law’s effective date (People v Walker, 81 NY2d 661, 666-667 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 444, 808 N.Y.S.2d 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sherwood-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack