People v. Singleton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Singleton

99 A.D.3d 481, 951 N.Y.2d 671

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

DecidedOctober 9, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 481 (People v. Singleton) 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. Singleton, 99 A.D.3d 481, 951 N.Y.2d 671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The court provided an appropriate reduction of defendant’s sentence pursuant to CPL 440.46, and we perceive no basis for a further reduction. Although the new sentence extended defendant’s period of supervision beyond what would have been the maximum expiration date of the original sentence, nothing in CPL 440.46 rendered this resentence impermissible. The resentence had the ameliorative effect of allowing defendant to gain early release from prison, as a result of the relationship be[482]*482tween the resentence and another sentence defendant was serving. The resentence was structured to benefit defendant, who received the exact sentence to which he had agreed (see People v Mack, 78 AD3d 520, 521 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 833 [2011]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

The court provided an appropriate reduction of defendant’s sentence pursuant to CPL 440.46, and we perceive no basis for a further reduction. Although the new sentence extended defendant’s period of supervision beyond what would have been the maximum expiration date of the original sentence, nothing in CPL 440.46 rendered this resentence impermissible. The resentence had the ameliorative effect of allowing defendant to gain early release from prison, as a result of the relationship be[482]*482tween the resentence and another sentence defendant was serving. The resentence was structured to benefit defendant, who received the exact sentence to which he had agreed (see People v Mack, 78 AD3d 520, 521 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 833 [2011]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 481, 951 N.Y.2d 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-singleton-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack