You are here: / / CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW.
,

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined defendant’s argument that three consecutive 25-year sentences arising from the same incident constituted cruel and unusual punishment was not preserved for review:

Defendant failed to preserve for review his claim that the sentence imposed by the court was “cruel and unusual.” Although defendant generally objected to the length of the sentence before the sentencing court, arguing that the sentence was draconian, he did not alert the court to his constitutional argument. Thus, the sentencing court was never given an opportunity to address any of the constitutional challenges that defendant now lodges with this Court. Accordingly, defendant’s “claim [ ] that his sentence constituted cruel and inhuman punishment [ ] is not properly before us” … . People v Pena, 2017 NY Slip Op 01142, CtApp 2-14-17

CRIMINAL LAW (CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW)/CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW)

You might also like
NYPD’S WRITTEN INVENTORY SEARCH PROTOCOL IS CONSTITUTIONAL; HERE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF THE TRUNK OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE TURNED UP A FIREARM (CT APP). ​
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARK (THAT SHOULD BE FINE) IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S INDICATION THAT COURT CONGESTION REQUIRED A LONGER ADJOURNMENT THAN DEFENSE COUNSEL REQUESTED WAS NOT EXPRESS CONSENT TO THE LONGER ADJOURNMENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS.
TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THE ADMISSION OF DNA PROFILES WAS HEARSAY WHICH VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (CT APP). ​
Building Which Included Residential (Hotel) and Non-Residential Sections Constituted a “Dwelling” Supporting Defendant’s Conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree
Application of the Emergency Doctrine Presented a Mixed Question of Law and Fact which Could Not Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LATE NOTICE DEFENSE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO RAISE THE DEFENSE IN DISCLAIMER LETTERS; MOTION TO ADD DEFENSE TO ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED.
BUILDINGS RECEIVING REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 421-g BENEFITS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY DEREGULATION PROVISIONS OF THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (CT APP).
HERE A STIPULATION BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT SETTING THE RENT FOR A RENT STABILIZED LEASE VIOLATED THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL) RENDERING THE STIPULATION VOID (CT APP).

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

PLEA TO HINDERING PROSECUTION FOR PROVIDING AND HIDING WEAPON STANDS, DESPITE... OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS...