You are here: / / BECAUSE THE INSTANT CONVICTION WAS FOR A CLASS A FELONY, SUPREME COURT...

BECAUSE THE INSTANT CONVICTION WAS FOR A CLASS A FELONY, SUPREME COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in affirming defendant’s conviction and sentence, noted that defendant should not have been sentenced as a second felony offender because the instant conviction was for a class A felony:

… [T]he Supreme Court was not authorized to adjudicate the defendant a second violent felony offender since the instant conviction was for a class A felony rather than a class B, C, D, or E felony (see Penal Law §§ 70.02[1]; 70.04[1][a]). Therefore, we vacate the defendant’s adjudication as a second violent felony offender. However, since the statutory sentencing parameters for a second violent felony offender do not include any specifications as to proper sentences for a class A felony because that crime is more serious than the crimes specified in those parameters, the error could not have affected the sentence imposed to the defendant’s detriment (see Penal Law § 70.04[1][a]… ). Therefore, the term of imprisonment imposed upon the defendant’s conviction of a class A felony should not be disturbed. People v Young, 2019 NY Slip Op 00152, Second Dept 1-9-19

You might also like
Analysis Where Two or More Insurance Companies Insure the Same Risk and Insured
PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT ABOUT EACH HAVING 50% OWNERSHIP OF TWO RESTAURANTS; DEFENDANT USED THE RESOURCES FROM THOSE RESTAURANTS TO OPEN A THIRD; PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S PRIVATE RESIDENCE WHEN INJURED, THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY MAY NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS EMPLOYED AS A CARPENTER BY DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN DIRECTING AND SUPERVISING THE WORK; SIMILARLY, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE, MATTER REMITTED FOR APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNSEL AND A RULING ON THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT STEMMED FROM HIS STRIKING AND SERIOUSLY INJURING AN EIGHT-POUND DOG; THERE WAS NO NEED TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; INDICTMENT REINSTATED OVER A DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTHER’S CUSTODY PETITION WITHOUT A BEST INTERESTS HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Lack of Standing Defense Waived If Not Raised In Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Lack of Standing Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect–Sua Sponte Dismissal on that Ground Improper

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

THERE EXISTS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR... JUDGE WAS NOT PRESENTED WITH ANY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING, SUA...