People v. Stamps

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stamps

50 A.D.3d 827, 854 N.Y.S.2d 652

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 8, 2008·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated September 27, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied his motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738) on his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on October 20, 1995.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The County Court, which considered, inter alia, the significant amount of drugs the defendant possessed, his extensive [828]*828and violent criminal history, and poor prison disciplinary record, providently exercised its discretion in determining that “substantial justice dictate[d] that the application should be denied” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23; see People v Alvarado, 48 AD3d 329 [2008]; People v Aguirre, 47 AD3d 489 [2008]; People v Ayala, 43 AD3d 800 [2007]; People v Vega, 40 AD3d 1020, 1020-1021 [2007]; People v Sanders, 36 AD3d 944, 946-947 [2007]; People v Gonzalez, 29 AD3d 400 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P., Miller, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated September 27, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied his motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738) on his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on October 20, 1995.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The County Court, which considered, inter alia, the significant amount of drugs the defendant possessed, his extensive [828]*828and violent criminal history, and poor prison disciplinary record, providently exercised its discretion in determining that “substantial justice dictate[d] that the application should be denied” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23; see People v Alvarado, 48 AD3d 329 [2008]; People v Aguirre, 47 AD3d 489 [2008]; People v Ayala, 43 AD3d 800 [2007]; People v Vega, 40 AD3d 1020, 1020-1021 [2007]; People v Sanders, 36 AD3d 944, 946-947 [2007]; People v Gonzalez, 29 AD3d 400 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P., Miller, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

People v. Stamps, 50 A.D.3d 827, 854 N.Y.S.2d 652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

50 A.D.3d 827 (People v. Stamps) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related