A man was convicted of drug crime and subsequently given an undefined sentence of imprisonment with a term of two to six years. The complainant asserts that the man engaged in the sale of $350 of cocaine to an undercover police officer on two occasions. Afterward, cocaine and drug paraphernalia were recovered from the man’s apartment where the sales took place. In addition to the instant offense, the man was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, convicted of invalid use of a credit card with intent to defraud and convicted of criminal trespass in the second degree.
The man was initially released to parole supervision on the instant offense. The parole violation warrants were issued to the man. In the warrants, it was alleged that the man had used cocaine and marijuana, failed to report to his officer on multiple occasions, left his approved residence and failed to attend two programs required by the division of parole. Subsequently, the man was re-imprisoned for a parole violation and continued to be in prison at the time the instant motion was filed. The man has been punished for one disciplinary infraction while in prison for grand larceny.
While in prison, the man successfully completed his drug treatment program and another program. He entered the alcohol and substance abuse treatment program. He also continues to participate in the program, where he has received a number of positive reviews. He has received training or done work in a number of vocational areas and increased his grade levels in math and reading. Prior to prison, the man served for eight years in the National Guard. The man asserts that he would be able to count on the support of his wife if he were released. His wife also wrote a letter supporting him for the release. The man’s counsel, the office of the appellate defender, asserts that it would assist in the man’s reintegration through its social work unit if he were released.
Based on records, drug reform act law allows certain convicted class B felony drug offenders and sex offenders serving undefined sentences to be resentenced to new determinate terms under the new determinate sentencing ranges created by the act.
Sources revealed that the complainant’s argument is both a jurisdictional one. They also argue that the man’s parole violations indicate that substantial justice dictates the denial of the man’s motion. The complainant’s jurisdictional argument is one which numerous courts are currently grappling with in other cases. The court has conducted a detailed analysis of the issue immediately.
In the court’s view, there are a number of errors in the argument. First, the two memos do not indicate what the roughly 400 or approximately 450 estimate was based on. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the estimates were based on the number of offenders in custody when the act was passed. The bill memo language also does not make clear whether it referred to the total pool of offenders who might be qualified to apply for resentencing or was an estimate of how many offenders would actually be resentenced but not for petit larceny.
Consequently, the court has determined that the man is statutorily qualified for resentencing. Finally, the court noted that the man was required to serve an additional 1½ years in prison which he would not have otherwise been required to serve if he had simply conformed to his parole conditions. He thus did not in any respect benefit from his technical parole violations, even after the court granted his motion. The court stated that granting the man’s motion in the case did not lead to any illogical or perverse result.
Whenever you engaged in illegal activities and subsequently fell in the hands of the authority, you can seek legal guidance from the New York City Criminal Lawyer. You can also ask for the NY Drug Crime Attorney for any drug related issue. You can visit or call Stephen Bilkis and Associates for your queries.