People v. Beasley, No. 2005-09396
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 850 N.Y.S.2d 140,47 A.D.3d 639,2008 NY Slip Op 111 |
| Decision Date | 08 January 2008 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DARYL BEASLEY, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 2005-09396 |
v.
DARYL BEASLEY, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grosso, J.), dated September 21, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied his motion pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738) for resentencing upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon which sentence was imposed in a judgment of the same court (Clabby, J.) rendered April 5, 1988.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance with the resentencing procedure set forth in the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738, § 23).
The defendant was convicted of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, an A-1 drug felony. On April 5, 1988, the defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life imprisonment under the Rockefeller Drug Laws (L 1973, ch 276, § 19). In 2005, after the enactment of the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738) (hereinafter the 2004 DLRA), the defendant made a pro se motion for resentencing. The Supreme Court appointed counsel to represent the defendant and, after a hearing, denied the motion. In a written decision, the court stated that the defendant, who had subsequently been convicted in 2003 of a class A-II drug offense while he was out of prison on a work-release furlough, had not established that "substantial justice" required that the motion be granted.
The court erred in placing the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that resentencing relief should be granted as a matter of "substantial justice." To the contrary, the 2004 DLRA provides that, after considering all relevant circumstances presented by the defendant and the People, the court "shall" determine an appropriate determinate sentence under the new sentencing provisions, "unless substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied" (L 2004, ch 738, § 23).
Notably, although the Legislature chose to give the new sentencing provisions of the 2004 DLRA only prospective application, it provided...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Overton
...or probation ( see People v. Curry, 52 A.D.3d at 732, 860 N.Y.S.2d 610), whether the defendant has shown remorse ( see People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d 639, 641, 850 N.Y.S.2d 140; People v. Sanders, 36 A.D.3d at 947, 829 N.Y.S.2d 187), and whether the defendant has a history of parole violation......
-
People v. Brown
...exists in favor of granting a motion for resentencing ( see People v. Concepcion, 85 A.D.3d 811, 924 N.Y.S.2d 849; People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d 639, 850 N.Y.S.2d 140). To hold that CPL 440.46 prevents the resentencing of defendants on parole would be inconsistent with the statute's remedial......
-
Saxon v. United States, 12 Cr. 320 (ER)
...justice dictates the denial thereof.'" People v. Gonzalez, 96 A.D.3d 875, 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (quoting People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d 639, 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)); see also People v. Brown, 115 A.D.3d 155, 161 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) ("The Legislature clearly intended that lengthy sent......
-
People v. Myles
...of granting a motion for resentencing relief absent a showing that substantial justice dictates the denial thereof” ( People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d 639, 641, 850 N.Y.S.2d 140; see CPL 440.46[3]; L. 2004, ch. 738, § 23). Resentencing is not automatic, and the determination is left to the disc......
-
People v. Overton
...or probation ( see People v. Curry, 52 A.D.3d at 732, 860 N.Y.S.2d 610), whether the defendant has shown remorse ( see People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d 639, 641, 850 N.Y.S.2d 140; People v. Sanders, 36 A.D.3d at 947, 829 N.Y.S.2d 187), and whether the defendant has a history of parole violation......
-
People v. Brown
...exists in favor of granting a motion for resentencing ( see People v. Concepcion, 85 A.D.3d 811, 924 N.Y.S.2d 849; People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d 639, 850 N.Y.S.2d 140). To hold that CPL 440.46 prevents the resentencing of defendants on parole would be inconsistent with the statute's remedial......
-
Saxon v. United States, 12 Cr. 320 (ER)
...justice dictates the denial thereof.'" People v. Gonzalez, 96 A.D.3d 875, 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (quoting People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d 639, 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)); see also People v. Brown, 115 A.D.3d 155, 161 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) ("The Legislature clearly intended that lengthy sent......
-
People v. Myles
...of granting a motion for resentencing relief absent a showing that substantial justice dictates the denial thereof” ( People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d 639, 641, 850 N.Y.S.2d 140; see CPL 440.46[3]; L. 2004, ch. 738, § 23). Resentencing is not automatic, and the determination is left to the disc......