From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Peterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 25, 2008
50 A.D.3d 1588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. KA 07-01496.

April 25, 2008.

Appeal from a new sentence of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered October 2, 2006 imposed upon defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. Defendant was resentenced pursuant to the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act upon his 2004 conviction.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (ROBERT P. RICKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (LISA FLEISCHMANN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Present: Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the sentence so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a new sentence upon his 2004 conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [former (1)]) imposed pursuant to the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act ([DLRA-2] L 2005, ch 643, § 1). We agree with defendant that County Court erred in failing to "offer [him] an opportunity for a hearing" pursuant to DLRA-2, inasmuch as defendant was not given an opportunity to offer "any facts or circumstances relevant to the imposition of a new sentence" (L 2005, ch 643, § 1). The court also erred in failing to set forth written findings of fact and the reasons for its determination to impose a determinate term of imprisonment of 9½ years and a five-year period of postrelease supervision ( see id.; People v Williams, 45 AD3d 1377, 1378). We therefore reverse the sentence and remit the matter to County Court to determine defendant's application in compliance with DLRA-2, including a determination whether defendant is ineligible for resentencing because he does not meet the eligibility requirements of Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) ( see People v Williams, 48 AD3d 858; People v Paniagua, 45 AD3d 98, 105-107, lv denied 9 NY3d 992; cf. People v Sanders, 36 AD3d 944, 945-946, lv denied 8 NY3d 927).


Summaries of

People v. Peterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 25, 2008
50 A.D.3d 1588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

People v. Peterson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAVON PETERSON…

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

Date published: Apr 25, 2008

Citations

50 A.D.3d 1588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3876
856 N.Y.S.2d 430

Citing Cases

People v. Luciano

It is hereby ordered that the sentence so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is…