People v. Vidal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vidal

111 A.D.3d 967, 975 N.Y.S.2d 468

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 27, 2013·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.), dated December 19, 2011, which denied his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the [968]*968third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on February 22, 1995.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46. The defendant was convicted of two felonies prior to the instant conviction, and incurred 16 disciplinary violations, including eight tier III infractions, while incarcerated. The defendant was convicted of two new crimes for acts committed while he was on parole for the instant conviction, and he again violated the terms and conditions of his parole after filing his motion to be resentenced. Under these circumstances, substantial justice dictated that his motion be denied (see People v Golo, 109 AD3d 623 [2013]; People v Gutierrez, 109 AD3d 486 [2013]; People v Browne, 107 AD3d 1013 [2013]; People v Milland, 103 AD3d 669, 670 [2013]). Eng, PJ., Dickerson, Hall and Austin, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.), dated December 19, 2011, which denied his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the [968]*968third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on February 22, 1995.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46. The defendant was convicted of two felonies prior to the instant conviction, and incurred 16 disciplinary violations, including eight tier III infractions, while incarcerated. The defendant was convicted of two new crimes for acts committed while he was on parole for the instant conviction, and he again violated the terms and conditions of his parole after filing his motion to be resentenced. Under these circumstances, substantial justice dictated that his motion be denied (see People v Golo, 109 AD3d 623 [2013]; People v Gutierrez, 109 AD3d 486 [2013]; People v Browne, 107 AD3d 1013 [2013]; People v Milland, 103 AD3d 669, 670 [2013]). Eng, PJ., Dickerson, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

People v. Vidal, 111 A.D.3d 967, 975 N.Y.S.2d 468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

111 A.D.3d 967 (People v. Vidal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related