People v. Reeb

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtPRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.
CitationPeople v. Reeb, 82 A.D.3d 1620, 920 N.Y.S.2d 499, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2181 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Decision Date25 March 2011
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Gary REEB, Defendant–Appellant.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert B. Hallborg, Jr., of Counsel), for DefendantAppellant.Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Hillery of Counsel), for Respondent.PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.MEMORANDUM:

On October 13, 2004 defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ) and was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 6 to 12 years. That crime was committed on September 20, 2003. On January 21, 2010, defendant applied for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46. County Court denied the application on the ground that defendant was ineligible for resentencing because he had a predicate conviction for an “exclusion offense,” i.e., “a crime for which [defendant] was previously convicted within the preceding ten years, excluding any time during which [he] was incarcerated for any reason between the time of commission of the previous felony and the time of commission of the present felony, which was ... a violent felony offense as defined in section 70.02 of the penal law (CPL 440.46[5][a][i] ). On October 27, 1995, defendant was convicted of two class D violent felony offenses, committed on August 18, 1995 and September 5, 1994, respectively.

The court erred in denying defendant's application on the ground that the two violent felony offenses fall within the definition of “exclusion offense” because they were committed within the 10–year period preceding the instant controlled substance offense for which defendant seeks resentencing. The phrase “within the preceding ten years” in CPL...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • People v. Crosby
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 24, 2011
    ...than from the date he committed the present drug felonies ( see People v. Lashley, 83 A.D.3d 868, 920 N.Y.S.2d 421; People v. Reeb, 82 A.D.3d 1620, 920 N.Y.S.2d 499; People v. Williams, 82 A.D.3d 796, 917 N.Y.S.2d 915; People v. Hill, 82 A.D.3d 77, 916 N.Y.S.2d 710; People v. Sosa, 81 A.D.3......
  • People v. Wallace
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 19, 2011
    ...but, rather, it refers to the 10–year period preceding the date of filing of the application for resentencing” ( People v. Reeb, 82 A.D.3d 1620, 1621, 920 N.Y.S.2d 499; see People v. Hill, 82 A.D.3d 77, 79–80, 916 N.Y.S.2d 710). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme......
  • People v. Bostic
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 10, 2011
    ...which he was applying to be resentenced, rather than from the date of filing of the application for resentencing ( see People v. Reeb, 82 A.D.3d 1620, 920 N.Y.S.2d 499; People v. Hill, 82 A.D.3d 77, 79–80, 916 N.Y.S.2d 710). We therefore reverse the order, and we remit the matter to Supreme......
  • People v. Castillo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 25, 2011