You are here: / / UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING...

UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING DRUG FELONY CANNOT BE SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice DeJoseph, in a matter of first impression, determined a defendant convicted of a qualifying drug felony cannot, under the Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA), be sentenced as a persistent felony offender (PFO):

In March 2016, defendant, by counsel, moved pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate his sentence on the ground that he was illegally sentenced as a PFO. Defendant contended that, because the crimes of CPCS in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and CSCS in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]) fall within Penal Law article 220, a defendant convicted of those crimes is not subject to sentencing as a PFO. Defendant contended that the 2004 DLRA removed the trial court’s discretion to sentence a defendant convicted of controlled substance or marihuana offenses as a PFO. * * *

The plain language of the statutes is clear that, when a defendant is convicted of a drug offense, he or she must be sentenced under the provisions outlined by Penal Law § 60.04, “notwithstanding the provisions of any law.” Thus, inasmuch as section 60.04 does not authorize sentencing such a defendant as a PFO, such a defendant cannot be sentenced pursuant to any provisions that do authorize sentencing as a PFO. While there are no definitive rulings on this issue by the Court of Appeals or any of the Appellate Divisions, trial courts have held that a drug offender is ineligible for PFO sentencing … .

As noted by the Court of Appeals, “when the legislature enacted the . . . DLRA, it sought to ameliorate the excessive punishments meted out to low-level, nonviolent drug offenders under the so-called Rockefeller Drug Laws, and therefore the statute is designed to spread relief as widely as possible, within the bounds of reason, to its intended beneficiaries” … . We believe that our interpretation of the DLRA is consistent with the remedial purpose of the DLRA, and we therefore conclude that Penal Law §§ 60.04 and 70.70 operate to preclude a court from sentencing a defendant found guilty of a qualifying drug felony as a PFO. People v Boykins, 2018 NY Slip Op 02919, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING DRUG FELONY CANNOT BE SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER, UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING DRUG FELONY CANNOT BE SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))/DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER, UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING DRUG FELONY CANNOT BE SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))/PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DLRA), UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING DRUG FELONY CANNOT BE SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Action Seeking to Enjoin Closure of Charter School Dismissed
THE MAJORITY IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE DETERMINED DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE THE DOG HAD NEVER EXHIBITED VICIOUS BEHAVIOR BEFORE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENCE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MEDICAL RECORDS SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE RESPONDENTS ADDRESSED THE RELEVANT ISSUES AT ORAL ARGUMENT; THE MEDICAL RECORDS DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM; ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE FOR DELAY WAS NOT ADEQUATE, THE DEFECT DID NOT REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
NOTICE OF INTENT WAS TIMELY AND THE CLAIM WAS NOT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, INMATE’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE STATE REINSTATED (FOURTH DEPT).
INITIAL ACCIDENT FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT 4TH DEPT.
FRAUD WARRANTED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF, PURSUANT TO THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION AND OFFERING PLAN, WAS THE... THE PEOPLE’S GROUND FOR STEP ONE OF THE BATSON CHALLENGE PROCEDURE WAS...