From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hurst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 2011
83 A.D.3d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4775.

April 14, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), entered on or about February 3, 2010, which denied defendant's CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously affirmed.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Peter Theis of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Naomi C. Reed of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.


The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that substantial justice dictated denial of the motion ( see generally People v Gonzalez, 29 AD3d 400, lv denied 7 NY3d 867). The court properly considered the totality of the circumstances, including defendant's history of recidivism and his failure to profit from rehabilitation opportunities while not in custody. These factors outweighed the positive factors cited by defendant, including his prison record.


Summaries of

People v. Hurst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 2011
83 A.D.3d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. Hurst

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EVERTON HURST…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 14, 2011

Citations

83 A.D.3d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2940
920 N.Y.S.2d 656

Citing Cases

People v. Stanton

rcised its discretion in determining that substantial justice required denial of his application ( see People…

People v. Nieves

The court properly considered the totality of the circumstances, including defendant's history of recidivism,…