You are here: / / FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURES FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY...

FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURES FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED.”

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to follow the statutory procedures for sentencing a persistent felony offender required that the motion to set aside the sentence be granted:

CPL 400.15 and 400.16 “govern the procedure that must be followed in any case where it appears that a defendant who stands convicted of a violent felony offense . . . has previously been subjected to two or more predicate violent felony convictions . . . and may be a persistent violent felony offender” (CPL 400.16[1]). Here, neither the People nor the Supreme Court complied with that mandatory procedure. Therefore, the sentence was “illegally imposed” (CPL 440.20[1]), regardless of whether the defendant is, in fact, a persistent violent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.08[1]), and the Supreme Court should have granted the motion to set aside the sentence … . People v Rivera, 2016 NY Slip Op 07036, 2nd Dept 10-26-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED”)/SENTENCING (FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED”)/PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED”)

You might also like
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO INDICATE PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING A BICYCLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT PROPERLY GRANTED.
PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO DENY DISCLOSURE BECAUSE OF CONCERNS FOR WITNESS SAFETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY’S QUANTUM MERUIT ACTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS PRECLUDED BY A WRITTEN CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
THE SUFFOLK COUNTY CODE PROVISIONS WHICH ALLOW THE SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF VEHICLES USED BY DRUNK DRIVERS IS CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).
Arbitration Award Based Upon Collective Bargaining Agreement Does Not Have a Preclusive Effect Upon a Subsequent Employment Discrimination Action Based on the Same Facts
THE BANK’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Abuse of Discretion to Grant Conditional Order of Preclusion and to Deny Late Motion to Amend Bill of Particulars
ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD, IN 2018, GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD TO CONNECTICUT, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING ABOUT THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK (SECOND 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

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS THE PRODUCT OF SUBSTANTIAL... PLAINTIFF’S CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHEN THE PUDDLE WAS FIRST SEEN...