Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J.), rendered February 18, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant was originally convicted after trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 25 years to life with the mandatory surcharge waived. The conviction was later reversed by this Court (234 A.D.2d 193, 652 N.Y.S.2d 5) and defendant pleaded guilty, before a different Justice, to criminal sale in the second degree and received the above sentence with the mandatory surcharge imposed. Contrary to defendant's contentions, there was no reasonable likelihood that the imposition of the $100 surcharge was the product of vindictiveness (see, People v. Young, 94 N.Y.2d 171, 701 N.Y.S.2d 309, 723 N.E.2d 58), as the sentence imposed upon the plea was far more lenient than the sentence that was originally imposed after trial. Moreover, the lack of merit of defendant's “vindictiveness” claim is underscored by the fact that, at sentencing, the court recommended defendant for early release on parole. Furthermore, the law of the case doctrine has no applicability to the instant situation (see, People v. Evans, 94 N.Y.2d 499, 706 N.Y.S.2d 678, 727 N.E.2d 1232). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 22, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)