People v. Utsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Utsey

22 A.D.3d 268, 801 N.Y.S.2d 738

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 268 (People v. Utsey) 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. Utsey, 22 A.D.3d 268, 801 N.Y.S.2d 738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John E Collins, J.), rendered April 22, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The penalty reduction provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738) do not apply to defendants sentenced prior to its enactment (People v Walker, 81 NY2d 661, 666-667 [1993]), and we reject defendant’s arguments to the contrary. Since defendant received the minimum sentence permitted by law, this Court has no authority to reduce it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (CPL 470.20 [6]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John E Collins, J.), rendered April 22, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The penalty reduction provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738) do not apply to defendants sentenced prior to its enactment (People v Walker, 81 NY2d 661, 666-667 [1993]), and we reject defendant’s arguments to the contrary. Since defendant received the minimum sentence permitted by law, this Court has no authority to reduce it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (CPL 470.20 [6]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 268, 801 N.Y.S.2d 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-utsey-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack