People v. Browne

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Turner

    63 N.Y.S.3d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    ORDERED that the order is affirmed.Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46. The defendant has an extensive criminal history (see People v. Perez, 127 A.D.3d 884, 4 N.Y.S.3d 902 ; People v. John, 120 A.D.3d 591, 990 N.Y.S.2d 827 ; People v. George, 118 A.D.3d 1019, 987 N.Y.S.2d 459 ; People v. Vidal, 111 A.D.3d 967, 968, 975 N.Y.S.2d 468 ; People v. Browne, 107 A.D.3d 1013, 966 N.Y.S.2d 873 ; People v. Milland, 103 A.D.3d 669, 670, 958 N.Y.S.2d 507 ). Further, he has exhibited a pattern of committing crimes while on parole (see People v. George, 118 A.D.3d at 1019, 987 N.Y.S.2d 459 ; People v. Vidal, 111 A.D.3d at 968, 975 N.Y.S.2d 468 ; People v. Browne, 107 A.D.3d at 1013, 966 N.Y.S.2d 873 ).

  2. People v. Turner

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 7757 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    ORDERED that the order is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46. The defendant has an extensive criminal history (see People v Perez, 127 AD3d 884; People v John, 120 AD3d 591; People v George, 118 AD3d 1019; People v Vidal, 111 AD3d 967, 968; People v Browne, 107 AD3d 1013; People v Milland, 103 AD3d 669, 670). Further, he has exhibited a pattern of committing crimes while on parole (see People v George, 118 AD3d at 1019; People v Vidal, 111 AD3d at 968; People v Browne, 107 AD3d at 1013).

  3. People v. George

    118 A.D.3d 1019 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 7 times

    ORDERED that the order is affirmed. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46. The defendant has a very extensive criminal history, which includes 3 felonies, 16 misdemeanors, and 8 violations ( see People v. Vidal, 111 A.D.3d 967, 968, 975 N.Y.S.2d 468;People v. Browne, 107 A.D.3d 1013, 966 N.Y.S.2d 873;People v. Milland, 103 A.D.3d 669, 670, 958 N.Y.S.2d 507). Further, he has violated conditions of parole on at least 10 occasions, and has exhibited a pattern of committing new crimes while on parole ( see People v. Vidal, 111 A.D.3d at 968, 975 N.Y.S.2d 468;People v. Browne, 107 A.D.3d at 1013, 966 N.Y.S.2d 873;People v. Milland, 103 A.D.3d at 670, 958 N.Y.S.2d 507;People v. Avila, 84 A.D.3d 1259, 1260, 923 N.Y.S.2d 674). Indeed, while a prior motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 was pending before the Supreme Court, the defendant committed an additional crime.

  4. People v. Plato

    166 A.D.3d 814 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 13 times
    In People v. Purnell, 166 AD3d 814 (2d Dept 2018), the search of the defendant's apartment was "rationally and reasonably related" to the parole officer's performance, where the parole officer was informed by a police detective that the police department had arrested someone who informed them that the defendant possessed a gun.

    However, resentencing is not automatic, and may be denied upon a showing that "substantial justice dictates" such denial ( People v. Beasley , 47 A.D.3d at 641, 850 N.Y.S.2d 140 ; see CPL 440.46[3] ; L 2004, ch 738, ยง 23; People v. Leon , 129 A.D.3d 867, 9 N.Y.S.3d 885 ).Here, considering all of the circumstances relevant to the defendant's motion, including his prior convictions of two violent felonies; his possession, at the time he committed the instant drug offense, of several weapons, leading to violent felony convictions, as well as numerous boxes of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and a stolen police radio; and his commission of 18 prison disciplinary infractions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that substantial justice dictated the denial of his motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 (seePeople v. Brown , 110 A.D.3d 915, 915โ€“916, 972 N.Y.S.2d 716 ; People v. Browne , 107 A.D.3d 1013, 966 N.Y.S.2d 873 ; People v. Cabrera , 103 A.D.3d 748, 748โ€“749, 959 N.Y.S.2d 534 ; People v. Franklin , 101 A.D.3d 1148, 1148โ€“1149, 956 N.Y.S.2d 494 ). MASTRO, J.P., SGROI, MALTESE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.

  5. People v. Vidal

    111 A.D.3d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 7 times

    The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46. The defendant was convicted of 2 felonies prior to the instant conviction, and incurred 16 disciplinary violations, including 8 Tier III infractions, while incarcerated. The defendant was convicted of two new crimes for acts committed while he was on parole for the instant conviction, and he again violated the terms and conditions of his parole after filing his motion to be resentenced. Under these circumstances, substantial justice dictated that his motion be denied ( see People v. Golo, 109 A.D.3d 623, 970 N.Y.S.2d 604; People v. Gutierrez, 109 A.D.3d 486, 970 N.Y.S.2d 85; People v. Browne, 107 A.D.3d 1013, 966 N.Y.S.2d 873; People v. Milland, 103 A.D.3d 669, 670, 958 N.Y.S.2d 507).