People v. Samuels
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 915 N.Y.S.2d 758,80 A.D.3d 1077 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marion SAMUELS, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 27 January 2011 |
80 A.D.3d 1077
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Marion SAMUELS, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan. 27, 2011.
Danise A. Stephens, Albany, for appellant.
James R. Farrell, District Attorney (Bonnie M. Mitzner of counsel), Monticello, for respondent.
Before: PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, ROSE, KAVANAGH and EGAN JR., JJ.
ROSE, J.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), entered January 6, 2010, which denied defendant's motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46.
In 2000, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal, upon the understanding that he would be permitted to re-plead to a lesser charge if he cooperated with law enforcement officials. He did not cooperate, and County Court sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment. Defendant subsequently applied for resentencing
We reverse. While County Court was entitled to deny defendant's application if "substantial justice dictate[d]" such a result (L. 2004, ch. 738, § 23; see CPL 440.46[3] ), it could not base that denial upon misinformation or materially untrue assumptions ( see People v. Naranjo, 89 N.Y.2d 1047, 1049, 659 N.Y.S.2d 826, 681 N.E.2d 1272 [1997]; People v. Braithwaite, 62 A.D.3d 1019, 1020-1021, 62 A.D.3d 1019, 880 N.Y.S.2d 669 [2009] ). A court is directed to consider a defendant's prison disciplinary history in weighing his or her application for resentencing and, in this case, defendant had incurred six disciplinary citations during his current term of incarceration ( see CPL 440.46[3] ). In its decision, however, County Court overstated the severity of several of them. While the People suggest that this overstatement was a typographical error that did not affect County Court's decision, we are not at liberty to make that assumption. County Court's express mention of "three Tier III hearings" in its decision "indicates that [it] probably considered them to be material" ( United States v. Stein, 544 F.2d 96, 102...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Allen
...considered them to be material” or “otherwise there would not have been any point in her mentioning them”); People v. Samuels, 80 A.D.3d 1077, 915 N.Y.S.2d 758, 759 (2011) (finding that sentencing court probably considered improper materials because it expressly mentioned them); State v. An......
-
People v. Horge
...41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 [1977]; People v. Harper, 73 A.D.3d 1389, 1389, 903 N.Y.S.2d 166 [2010], lv.915 N.Y.S.2d 758denied 15 N.Y.3d 920, 913 N.Y.S.2d 647, 939 N.E.2d 813 [2010] ). The State Trooper involved appropriately stopped defendant's vehicle after obser......
-
People v. Bethune
...379, 750 N.E.2d 81 [2001] ), and thus failed to reveal the need for a hearing. The submissions and trial record do not support defendant's80 A.D.3d 1077claim that he received ineffective assistance. His counsel made certain limited inquiries about915 N.Y.S.2d 422the serial numbers of severa......
-
Jackson v. Fischer
...of Mingo v. Fischer, 92 A.D.3d 1051, 1052, 937 N.Y.S.2d 899 [2012], lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 801, 2012 WL 1504382 [2012]; People v. Samuels, 80 A.D.3d 1077, 1078, 915 N.Y.S.2d 758 [2011]; People v. Gray, 11 A.D.3d 821, 822, 783 N.Y.S.2d 428 [2004]; People v. Jenkins, 300 A.D.2d 751, 753–754, 751......