People v. Winfield

59 A.D.3d 747, 874 N.Y.S.2d 225
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 24, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 747 (People v. Winfield) 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. Winfield, 59 A.D.3d 747, 874 N.Y.S.2d 225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (J. Doyle, J.), dated November 2, 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, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, unlawful possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on August 12, 1997.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738; hereinafter the 2004 DLRA) established a new sentencing structure for laws which were enacted in 1973 and were commonly referred to as the Rockefeller Drug Laws (see L 1973, ch 276, § 19). The 2004 DLRA became effective January 13, 2005, and was to be applied prospectively (L 2004, ch 738, § 41 [d-1]). A subsequent enactment of the Legislature, effective October 29, 2005, retroactively extended the revised sentencing provisions of the 2004 DLRA to certain qualified inmates who previously had been convicted of class A-II felonies (L 2005, ch 643, § 1).

The County Court, after a hearing, providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to be resentenced. The defendant has an extensive prior criminal history dating back to 1982 and was subjected to disciplinary action 53 times while incarcerated. Under these circumstances, substantial [748]*748justice dictated that the motion be denied (see L 2005, ch 643, § 1; People v Flores, 50 AD3d 1156 [2008]; People v Sanders, 36 AD3d 944, 946 [2007]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Eng, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Milland
103 A.D.3d 669 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Baldwin
96 A.D.3d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Barnes
95 A.D.3d 1029 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Quintero
86 A.D.3d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Wilson
85 A.D.3d 1069 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Karim
85 A.D.3d 943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Browning
84 A.D.3d 1263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Hallman
84 A.D.3d 1266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Overton
86 A.D.3d 4 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Dennis
84 A.D.3d 834 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Adeola
82 A.D.3d 1258 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Witkowski
82 A.D.3d 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Colon
77 A.D.3d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Pipkin
77 A.D.3d 770 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 A.D.3d 747, 874 N.Y.S.2d 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-winfield-nyappdiv-2009.