Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Raymond Vega

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


April 18, 2013

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
RAYMOND VEGA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People v Vega

Decided on April 18, 2013

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Andrias, J.P., Acosta, Freedman, Richter, Gische, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.), entered on or about September 7, 2010, which denied defendant's CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously affirmed.

The motion court properly found that defendant's 1988 adjudication as a second violent felony offender rendered him ineligible for resentencing on his drug conviction (see CPL 440.46[5][b]). Defendant asserts that this adjudication should not render him ineligible, because his sentence on his underlying 1983 violent felony conviction was allegedly unlawful under People v Rodney E. (77 NY2d 672 [1991]), which invalidated certain sentences that followed unauthorized periods of interim probation. That argument is without merit, for each of the reasons stated by the motion court: (1) defendant is procedurally barred from challenging his adjudication as a second violent felony offender (see CPL 400.15[8]); (2) the record is unclear whether defendant was actually placed on interim probation in connection with his 1983 conviction; (3) even assuming that to be the case, the record does not establish that defendant's 1983 sentence was unlawfully enhanced on the basis of his behavior while on interim probation (see People v Avery, 85 NY2d 503, 506 [1995]); and (4) even assuming there was a sentencing defect, that would not affect defendant's second violent felony offender status (see People v Ashley, 71 AD3d 1286, 1287 [3d Dept 2010], affd on other grounds 16 NY3d 725 [2011]). We have considered and rejected defendant's arguments regarding each of these issues.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: APRIL 18, 2013

CLERK

20130418

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.