People v. Peterson

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06952,88 A.D.3d 1026,930 N.Y.S.2d 497
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Thomas PETERSON, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 06 October 2011

88 A.D.3d 1026
930 N.Y.S.2d 497
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06952

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Thomas PETERSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Oct. 6, 2011.

Arlene Levinson, Public Defender, Hudson (Jessica D. Howser of counsel), for appellant.Beth G. Cozzolino, District Attorney, Hudson (H. Neal Conolly of counsel), for respondent.Before: PETERS, J.P., ROSE, LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.PETERS, J.P.

[88 A.D.3d 1027] Appeal from an order of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), entered May 18, 2010, which denied defendant's application for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46.

In 1997, defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison. In 2010, defendant made an application to be resentenced under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009. Following a hearing, County Court denied defendant's application. Defendant now appeals.

The Drug Law Reform Act provides, in relevant part, that eligible defendants shall be resentenced unless, upon consideration of all relevant factors, “substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied” (L. 2004, ch. 738 § 23; see CPL 440.46[3]; People v. LaPorte, 53 A.D.3d 984, 985, 863 N.Y.S.2d 113 [2008] ). County Court is vested with discretion to determine whether substantial justice dictates denial of a defendant's application for resentencing ( see People v. LaPorte, 53 A.D.3d at 985, 863 N.Y.S.2d 113; 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] ). We find that the court providently exercised its discretion and did not, as defendant contends, inappropriately shift the burden of proof ( see People v. Colon, 77 A.D.3d 849, 850, 909 N.Y.S.2d 144 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 952, 917 N.Y.S.2d 112, 942 N.E.2d 323 [2010]; People v. LaPorte, 53 A.D.3d at 985, 863 N.Y.S.2d 113; People v. Rivers, 43 A.D.3d at 1247, 842 N.Y.S.2d 611; compare People v. Beasley, 47 A.D.3d 639, 640, 850 N.Y.S.2d 140 [2008] ). The court appropriately considered defendant's positive institutional disciplinary record and participation in programs, but also noted that defendant has a significant criminal history linked to his involvement with drugs, including a conviction of manslaughter in the first degree. Moreover, the record reflects that defendant was on parole on a drug-related offense when he committed...