You are here: / / LEGAL SENTENCE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER DRASTICALLY REDUCED IN...
, ,

LEGAL SENTENCE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER DRASTICALLY REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PURSUANT TO A MOTION FOR A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS BASED UPON APPELLATE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO CONTEND THE SENTENCING COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department drastically reduced defendant’s sentence pursuant to a motion for a writ of coram nobis based on appellate counsel’s failure to to contend that the sentencing court abused its discretion in finding defendant to be a persistent felony contender. The Fourth Department found that the sentencing court  was not erroneous as a matter of law because it did not act arbitrarily or irrationally. However, the Fourth Department noted that it has the authority to vacate a harsh or severe persistent felony offender finding pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 470.20 (6) and did so. Defendant’s 15 to life sentence was reduced to an aggregate sentence of 5 1/2 to 11:

Although defendant has a lengthy criminal history, almost all of his offenses stem from him stealing from stores to get money to support his long-standing drug habit. It does not appear from the presentence report that defendant has ever inflicted violence on anyone, and he certainly did not physically harm anyone in this case.

We note that the People never requested that defendant be adjudicated a persistent felony offender; instead, the court sua sponte ordered the persistent felony offender hearing. As noted, the People, in a pretrial plea bargain, offered defendant a sentence of concurrent indeterminate terms of incarceration of 2 to 4 years. Moreover, the judge who initially handled this case transferred it to Drug Treatment Court, which rejected defendant due to his extended period of sobriety—he had been in jail for more than a year at the time awaiting trial. Defendant thus went from having his case transferred to Drug Treatment Court, where successful completion may have resulted in reduction of the felony charges to misdemeanors, to being sentenced to 20 years to life, on the same charges [reduced to 15 to life on a prior appeal]. Such a disparity between the plea offer and the ultimate sentence militates in favor of a sentence reduction, especially for a nonviolent offender such as defendant. People v Ellison, 2018 NY Slip Op 08833, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

You might also like
HERE THE NEW STATUTE REQUIRING THE PEOPLE TO FILE AND SERVE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS WENT INTO EFFECT AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD ANNOUNCED READINESS FOR TRIAL; THE STATUTE RETURNED THE PEOPLE TO A STATE OF UNREADINESS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Malpractice Action Against Pharmacy Dismissed; Applicable Standard of Care and Insufficiency of Expert Affidavit Explained
DEFENDANT MADE A VALID REQUEST TO APPEAR IN THE GRAND JURY BEFORE THE AMENDED INDICTMENT WAS FILED; THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY DECLINED THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY WAS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED AFTER MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE BROUGHT, BUT BEFORE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, WERE TIMELY.
PEOPLE FAILED TO PROVE THE VICTIM-AGE AND TIME-PERIOD ELEMENTS OF PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST A CHILD, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Judge’s Refusal to Allow Defendant to Call Inmate Witness Required Reversal
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT FATHER ABANDONED THE CHILD, THE PERMANENT NEGLECT FINDING, HOWEVER, WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY TENANT’S DOG (FOURTH 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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED GRANDMOTHER’S PETITION FOR VISITATION,... SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AUTHORIZED CHANGING THE CHILD’S NAME TO...