People v. Winfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Winfield

59 A.D.3d 747, 874 N.Y.S.2d 225

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 24, 2009·Published·Cited by 16 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

59 A.D.3d 747 (People v. Winfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related