People v. Bispo
| Decision Date | 08 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2006-04594,2006-04594 |
| Citation | 2008 NY Slip Op 112,47 A.D.3d 641,849 N.Y.S.2d 292 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CASTANO BISPO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the notice of appeal from a transcript of the same court dated March 9, 2006, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order dated August 14, 2006; and it is further Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
An enactment of the Legislature in 2005, effective October 29, 2005, retroactively extended the revised sentencing provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738) to certain qualified inmates who had been previously convicted of class A-II felonies (L 2005, ch 643, § 1; hereinafter the 2005 DLRA). The 2005 DLRA vests in the sentencing court the authority to exercise its discretion in considering an inmate's application for resentencing if that inmate, inter alia, meets the eligibility requirements of Correction Law § 803 (1) (d), which are defined in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of that section (see People v Sanders, 36 AD3d 944, 945 [2007]).
Contrary to the People's contention, a defendant from whom a merit time allowance has been withheld pursuant to Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (iv), is not precluded from seeking resentencing under the 2005 DLRA (see People v Sanders, 36 AD3d at 946; People v Quinones, 11 Misc 3d 582, 595-596 [2005]; cf. People v Paniagua, 45 AD3d 98 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 992 [2007]). "The proscription under Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (iv) which provides that such allowance `shall be withheld for any serious disciplinary infraction' applies only to inmates who were eligible to earn an allowance, in the first instance, pursuant to Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (i) and (ii)" (People v Sanders, 36 AD3d at 946). Here, the defendant was statutorily eligible to earn a merit time allowance under Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (i) and (ii). Since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Myles
...738, § 23). Resentencing is not automatic, and the determination is left to the discretion of the Supreme Court ( see People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d at 641, 850 N.Y.S.2d 140). In exercising its discretion, the Supreme Court may “consider any facts or circumstances relevant to the imposition o......
-
People v. Miller
...However, resentencing is not automatic, and the determination is left to the discretion of the Supreme Court ( see People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d at 641, 850 N.Y.S.2d 140; People v. Vega, 40 A.D.3d 1020, 1020–1021, 836 N.Y.S.2d 685). In exercising its discretion, a court may “consider any fac......
-
People v. Parker
...is left to the discretion of the Supreme Court” ( People v. Gonzalez, 96 A.D.3d at 876, 946 N.Y.S.2d 215;see People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d at 641, 850 N.Y.S.2d 140). In exercising its discretion, a court may “consider any facts or circumstances relevant to the imposition of a new sentence wh......
-
People v. Green
...790;People v. Concepcion, 85 A.D.3d at 812, 924 N.Y.S.2d 849;People v. Hallman, 84 A.D.3d at 1267, 923 N.Y.S.2d 224;People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d at 641, 850 N.Y.S.2d...