People v. Davis, 105306
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 9 N.Y.S.3d 732,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04520,128 A.D.3d 1269 |
| Docket Number | 105306 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jace DAVIS, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 28 May 2015 |
128 A.D.3d 1269
9 N.Y.S.3d 732
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04520
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Jace DAVIS, Appellant.
105306
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 28, 2015.
Norbert A. Higgins, Binghamton, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., ROSE, DEVINE and CLARK, JJ.
Opinion
DEVINE, J.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), entered October 11, 2012, which denied defendant's application for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46.
In 2002, defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced to 8 to 16 years in prison. In 2012, defendant made an application to be resentenced under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009. County Court denied the application and defendant appeals.
We affirm. Pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act, eligible defendants shall be resentenced unless “substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied” (L. 2004, ch. 738 § 23; see People v. Peterson, 88 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 930 N.Y.S.2d 497 [2011] ). Further, “County Court is vested with discretion to determine whether substantial justice dictates denial of a defendant's application for resentencing” (People v. Peterson, 88 A.D.3d at 1027, 930 N.Y.S.2d 497 [citation omitted]; see People v. Rivers, 43 A.D.3d 1247, 1247, 842 N.Y.S.2d 611 [2007], lv. dismissed 9 N.Y.3d 993, 848 N.Y.S.2d 610, 878 N.E.2d 1026 [2007] ). The record reflects
that defendant has a lengthy criminal history dating back to 1987, including several felony convictions. Moreover, since his 2002 conviction, he has violated parole three times, the final violation resulting in a 2011 conviction for tampering with physical evidence....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Zabawczuk, 105274
...that it was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because County Court did not explain or ascertain that defendant understood the 128 A.D.3d 1269nature of the right being waived, including that the right was “separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty ple......
-
People v. Lee, 107095.
...eligible defendant shall be resentenced “unless ‘substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied’ ” (People v. Davis, 128 A.D.3d 1269, 1269, 9 N.Y.S.3d 732 [2015], quoting L. 2004, ch. 738 § 23; see 30 N.Y.S.3d 585 People v. Carpenter, 86 A.D.3d 721, 721, 926 N.Y.S.2d 836......
-
People v. Coleman, 107849
...be resentenced unless "substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied" (L 2004, ch 738 § 23; see People v. Davis, 128 A.D.3d 1269, 1269, 9 N.Y.S.3d 732 [2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 996, 59 N.E.3d 1218 [2016] ). "County Court is vested with discretion to determine whether ......