People v. Zippo

29 A.D.3d 1179, 814 N.Y.S.2d 812
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 18, 2006·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr, J.), rendered April 4, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 21fe to 5 years. He appeals, asserting that the Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Act (see L 2004, ch 738), which was signed into law after he was arrested but before he was sentenced, should apply retroactively to his case pursuant to the amelioration doctrine enunciated in People v Behlog (74 NY2d 237 [1989]).

We disagree and affirm. The Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Act was intended to apply only in instances where the criminal conduct was committed on or subsequent to the effective date thereof (see People v Ward, 27 AD3d 776, 778 [2006]; People v Clinton, 22 AD3d 887, 888 [2005]; see also People v Nelson, 21 AD.3d 861, 862 [2005], lv granted 6 NY3d 757 [2005]). In view of this disposition, defendant’s contention that he should have been advised that he was eligible to be sentenced to a determinate sentence pursuant to the Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Act is meritless.

[1180]*1180Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

People v. Zippo, 29 A.D.3d 1179, 814 N.Y.S.2d 812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

29 A.D.3d 1179 (People v. Zippo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Capaci
34 A.D.3d 1129 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)