You are here: / / NEW YORK’S PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCING SCHEME IS CONSTITUTIONAL,...
,

NEW YORK’S PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCING SCHEME IS CONSTITUTIONAL, IT DOES NOT INVOLVE PROOF OF A FACT OTHER THAN A PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reaffirmed its prior holdings finding New York’s persistent felony offender sentencing scheme constitutional:

The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee criminal defendants in state courts “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” To satisfy that right, the People must prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Among those elements is any fact — other than one admitted by the defendant or involving the mere fact of a prior felony conviction … — that has the effect of increasing the prescribed range of penalties to which a defendant is exposed … . …

… [W]e have held that the [persistent felony offender] statute … exposes defendants to an enhanced sentencing range based only on the existence of two prior felony convictions … . As we have consistently explained, the existence of those prior convictions — each the result of either a guilty plea or a jury verdict — is the “sole determinant of whether a defendant is subject to recidivist sentencing as a persistent felony offender” … . Only after the existence of those prior convictions is established and the maximum permissible sentence raised does Supreme Court have “the discretion to choose the appropriate sentence within a sentencing range prescribed by statute” … .

“The court’s opinion is, of course, subject to appellate review, as is any exercise of discretion. The Appellate Division, in its own discretion, may conclude that a persistent felony offender sentence is too harsh or otherwise improvident” and reduce it in the interest of justice to a sentence within the statutory range fixed by the legislature for the crime of conviction, without regard to the persistent felony offender enhancement … . “In this way, the Appellate Division can and should mitigate inappropriately severe applications of the statute” … .

In other words, the statute mandates a two-part process: in step one, the court adjudicates the defendant a persistent felony offender if the necessary and sufficient fact of the two prior convictions is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby exposing him to the sentencing range applicable to such offenders; in step two, it evaluates what sentence is warranted and sets forth an explanation of its opinion on that question for the record … . People v Prindle, 2017 NY Slip Op 05267, CtApp 6-29-17

 

You might also like
PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED.
LABORATORY WHICH TESTS URINE FOR THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TESTEE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROCEDURE; FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED ON THE RELIANCE OF A THIRD-PARY, AS OPPOSED TO THE PLAINTIFF, UPON A MISREPRESENTATION.
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEES FOR CIVIL SERVICE EXAMS IS NOT A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION UNDER THE TAYLOR LAW (CT APP).
Pre-Closing Documents Can Not Be Used to Prove Conveyance or the Issuance of Title Insurance
TOWING OF DEFENDANT’S CAR (AND INVENTORY SEARCH) AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST FOR SHOPLIFTING WAS CONSISTENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT’S WRITTEN POLICY.
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISON ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY, THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY HAD NOTICE OF A SOCIAL SERVICES CASEWORKER’S SEXUAL ABUSE OR PROPENSITY FOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED BY THE SECOND CIRCUIT BEFORE DEFENDANT’S TRIAL AND SUSPENDED IN NEW YORK JUST AFTER DEFENDANT’S TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S DEPRIVATION-OF-HIS-RIGHT-TO-COUNSEL AND INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE ARGUMENTS WERE REJECTED; THE ATTORNEY WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF HIS SUSPENSION OR THE PENDING SUSPENSION PROCEEDINGS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PROSECUTOR’S CHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT IMPROPER, DEFENSE... LAWSUIT INVOLVED WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS LOCATED IN RUSSIA, DISMISSAL BASED...