People v. Santiago
| Citation | 929 N.Y.S.2d 761,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06574,87 A.D.3d 1077 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Anthony SANTIAGO, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 20 September 2011 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERELynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Ellen Fried of counsel), for appellant.Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Johnnette Traill of counsel; William Palka on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), dated June 21, 2010, which denied his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on October 21, 1996.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the defendant's motion.
The defendant contends, and the People correctly concede, that contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, his status as a reincarcerated parole violator did not render him ineligible to apply for resentencing pursuant to the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act, codified in CPL 440.46 ( see People v. Paulin, 17 N.Y.3d 238, 929 N.Y.S.2d 36, 952 N.E.2d 1028; People v. Howard, 85 A.D.3d 1202, 1202–1203, 926 N.Y.S.2d 296). Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the defendant's motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tucker
...87 A.D.3d 1077929 N.Y.S.2d 6312011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06575The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Henry TUCKER, appellant.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.Sept. 20, [929 N.Y.S.2d 632] Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen Whooley of counsel), for appellant.Daniel M. Don......
-
People v. McCray
...no such testimony. Under these circumstances, there was no legitimate trial strategy for counsel's actions (see People v. Miller, 87 A.D.3d at 1077, 929 N.Y.S.2d 328 ). While defense counsel's elicitation of damaging testimony and inadequate review of the complainant's grand jury testimony ......
-
People v. Miller
...was admitted into evidence. This testimony implied that the defendant raped the girlfriend's daughter and impermissibly suggested [87 A.D.3d 1077] that the defendant had a propensity for committing crimes of sexual abuse against young children. To compound the error, defense counsel did not......
-
People v. Martin
......Paulin, 17 N.Y.3d 238, 242, 929 N.Y.S.2d 36, 952 N.E.2d 1028; see People v. Vidal, 87 A.D.3d 1085, 929 N.Y.S.2d 752; People v. Santiago, 87 A.D.3d 1077, 929 N.Y.S.2d 761; People v. Howard, 85 A.D.3d 1202, 1202–1203, 926 N.Y.S.2d 296; People v. Phillips, 82 A.D.3d 1011, 1012, 919 N.Y.S.2d 88). Accordingly, as the People correctly concede, the order appealed from must be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings ......