You are here: / / FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURES FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY...

FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURES FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED.”

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to follow the statutory procedures for sentencing a persistent felony offender required that the motion to set aside the sentence be granted:

CPL 400.15 and 400.16 “govern the procedure that must be followed in any case where it appears that a defendant who stands convicted of a violent felony offense . . . has previously been subjected to two or more predicate violent felony convictions . . . and may be a persistent violent felony offender” (CPL 400.16[1]). Here, neither the People nor the Supreme Court complied with that mandatory procedure. Therefore, the sentence was “illegally imposed” (CPL 440.20[1]), regardless of whether the defendant is, in fact, a persistent violent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.08[1]), and the Supreme Court should have granted the motion to set aside the sentence … . People v Rivera, 2016 NY Slip Op 07036, 2nd Dept 10-26-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED”)/SENTENCING (FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED”)/PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED”)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED, ONCE THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH REVEALED DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A WEAPON THE POLICE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REMOVING THE (STOLEN) WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET AND SEARCHING IT; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS UNDER THE STANDARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL CUSTODIAN’S STATEMENT TO A TEACHER THAT ON THE DAY HE IS FIRED HE WILL COME IN AND ‘COLUMBINE THIS SHIT’ DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A TERRORISTIC THREAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW, DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT AFTER A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS PROPER.
DEFAMATION CRITERIA FOR A PUBLIC FIGURE DESCRIBED; APPELLATE REVIEW POWERS IN PUBLIC FIGURE DEFAMATION ACTIONS EXPLAINED.
THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS UNSWORN, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT OBJECT; DESPITE PLAINTFF’S SIGNING A GENERIC CONSENT FORM, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND IMPROPERLY RAISED AN ISSUE NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF PARTICULARS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE ‘FALSE CONFESSION’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY, CONVICTION REVERSED; RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES NOT VIOLATED BY STATEMENTS IN THE VIDEO INTERROGATION THAT NONTESTIFYING WITNESSES HAD IMPLICATED THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, DEFENDANT PROPERTY MANAGER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR THAT IT LACKED CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; IN ADDITION PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO INFORM INSURER OF A SETTLEMENT WITH THE INSURED PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE INSURER’S PETITION TO PERMANENTLY STAY ARBITRATION ON AN UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS THE PRODUCT OF SUBSTANTIAL... PLAINTIFF’S CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHEN THE PUDDLE WAS FIRST SEEN...