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, etc., respondent, v. Joaquin WINFIELD, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (J. Doyle, J.), dated November 2, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied his motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L. 2004, ch. 738) on his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, unlawful possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on August 12, 1997.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed.
The Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L. 2004, ch. 738; hereinafter the 2004 DLRA) established a new sentencing structure for laws which were enacted in 1973 and were commonly referred to as the Rockefeller Drug Laws (see L. 1973, ch. 276, § 19). The 2004 DLRA became effective January 13, 2005, and was to be applied prospectively (L. 2004, ch. 738, § 41[d-1] ). A subsequent enactment of the Legislature, effective October 29, 2005, retroactively extended the revised sentencing provisions of the 2004 DLRA to certain qualified inmates who previously had been convicted of class A-II felonies (L. 2005, ch. 643, § 1).
The County Court, after a hearing, providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to be resentenced. The defendant has an extensive prior criminal history dating back to 1982, and was subjected to disciplinary action 53 times while incarcerated. Under these circumstances, substantial justice dictated that the motion be denied (see L. 2005, ch. 643, § 1; People v. Flores, 50 A.D.3d 1156, 856 N.Y.S.2d 668; People v. Sanders, 36 A.D.3d 944, 946, 829 N.Y.S.2d 187).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 24, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)