From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Aviles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 16, 2006
29 A.D.3d 813 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-01452.

May 16, 2006.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered January 28, 2005, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Caroline R. Donhauser of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

"In the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 41[d-1]), the Legislature expressed its intent that, with certain exceptions not applicable herein, the ameliorative provisions of the act were not to be applied to crimes committed before the effective date of the act. The defendant's crime was committed before the effective date of the act. Accordingly, we reject the defendant's contention that [he] is entitled to the benefits of the ameliorative provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act" ( People v. McCray, 27 AD3d 486; see People v. Torres, 26 AD3d 398; cf. People v. Goode, 25 AD3d 723).


Summaries of

People v. Aviles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 16, 2006
29 A.D.3d 813 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Aviles

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAVIER AVILES…

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

Date published: May 16, 2006

Citations

29 A.D.3d 813 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 3910
813 N.Y.S.2d 914

Citing Cases

People v. Zamor

The DLRA, while ameliorative in nature, expressly stated that the new sentencing structure "shall apply to…

People v. Ikker

Thus, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defense counsel's challenges ( see…