People v. Flores
| Decision Date | 29 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2006-07735. |
| Citation | 50 A.D.3d 1156,856 N.Y.S.2d 668,2008 NY Slip Op 04105 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHORIN FLORES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed.
The Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 () established a new sentencing structure for laws which were enacted in 1973 and were commonly referred to as the Rockefeller Drug Laws. The 2004 DLRA was 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 had been previously convicted of class A-II felonies (L 2005, ch 643, § 1; hereinafter the 2005 DLRA).
The Supreme Court, after a hearing, providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application to be resentenced pursuant to the 2005 DLRA. The defendant is a second felony offender with a prior criminal history dating back to 1994, including a prior violent felony conviction (see People v Alvarado, 48 AD3d 329 [2008]; People v Sanders, 36 AD3d 944, 946-947 [2007]). Moreover, despite the defendant's positive achievements while incarcerated, he also has a poor prison disciplinary record (see People v Rivers, 43 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2007]; People v Vega, 40 AD3d 1020, 1020-1021 [2007]).
The 2005 DLRA expressly provides that the court may consider the institutional record of confinement of a person seeking to be resentenced thereunder (see Drug Law Reform Act, L 2005, ch 643, § 1; People v Vega, 40 AD3d at 1020-1021; People v Sanders, 36 AD3d 944 [2007]; People v Quinones, 11 Misc 3d 582, 600 n 15 [2005]). Here, during approximately 5 1/3 years of incarceration, the defendant received six disciplinary tickets, including one for alcohol use, a Tier 3 infraction, for which he was confined to a special housing unit for 60 days (see 7 NYCRR 280.2 [b] [2] [xii]). The defendant also received disciplinary sanctions which totaled 60 days of keeplock time for five other disciplinary infractions, including violation of rules 104.11 (violent conduct), 104.13 (creating a disturbance), and 100.13 (fighting) (see 7 NYCRR 280.2 [b] [3]).
Accordingly, under these circumstances, substantial justice dictated that the application be denied (see L 2005, ch 643, § 1).
Contrary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Overton
...( see People v. Winfield, 59 A.D.3d 747, 874 N.Y.S.2d 225; People v. Perez, 57 A.D.3d 921, 922, 870 N.Y.S.2d 418; People v. Flores, 50 A.D.3d 1156, 856 N.Y.S.2d 668; People v. Stamps, 50 A.D.3d 827, 827–828, 854 N.Y.S.2d 652; People v. Vega, 40 A.D.3d 1020, 836 N.Y.S.2d 685; People v. Sande......
-
People v. Garcia
...court should consider the institutional record of confinement of a person seeking to be resentenced under the DLRA (see People v. Flores, 50 A.D.3d 1156, 856 N.Y.S.2d 668 ; see also L 2005, ch 643, § 1)."An intermediate appellate court has broad, plenary power to modify a sentence that is u......
-
People v. Miller
...98; People v. Colon, 77 A.D.3d 849, 850, 909 N.Y.S.2d 144; People v. Curry, 52 A.D.3d 732, 732, 860 N.Y.S.2d 610; People v. Flores, 50 A.D.3d 1156, 1157, 856 N.Y.S.2d 668; People v. Sanders, 36 A.D.3d 944, 946–947, 829 N.Y.S.2d ...
-
Tejada v. Superintendent
...defendants who were convicted of class A-I, class A-II, and class B felonies. Id. (regarding 2005 amendments); People v. Flores, 50 A.D.3d 1156 (2d Dep't 2008) (same); People v. Bustamante, 124 A.D.3d 1132, 1133 (3d Dep't 2015) (discussing application of 2009 DLRA amendments to class B drug......