| People v Rivers |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07034 [43 AD3d 1247] |
| September 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v RonaldRivers, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Alfred M. Chapleau of counsel), forrespondent.
Carpinello, J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.),rendered June 29, 2006, which denied defendant's application to be resentenced under the DrugLaw Reform Act of 2004.
In 1989, defendant was convicted after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the first degree and was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. His conviction andsentence were affirmed by this Court on appeal (169 AD2d 883 [1991], lv denied 77NY2d 999 [1991]). In April 2005, he made an application to be resentenced under the Drug LawReform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738 [hereinafter the DLRA]). Following a hearing, CountyCourt denied his application. He now appeals.
The DLRA provides that, in reviewing an application for resentencing, the court mayconsider "any facts or circumstances relevant to the imposition of a new sentence which aresubmitted by [the defendant] or the people and may, in addition, consider the institutional recordof confinement of [the defendant]" (L 2004, ch 738, § 23). Notably, the court is vestedwith the discretion to deny an application for resentencing if "substantial justice dictates that theapplication should be denied" (L 2004, ch 738, § 23; see People v Vasquez, 41 AD3d 111 [2007], lv dismissed 9NY3d 870 [2007]; People vSalcedo, 40 AD3d 356 [2007], lv denied [*2]9NY3d 850 [2007]). In the case at hand, evidence was presented at the hearing establishing thatdefendant has had a significant number of prison disciplinary violations while incarcerated, aswell as a fairly lengthy criminal record predating the conviction for which he is seekingresentencing. As noted by County Court, defendant did not freely admit his guilt of either thecriminal acts or the disciplinary violations during the course of the proceedings. Consequently,notwithstanding defendant's considerable educational and vocational accomplishments and hisopportunity for employment upon release, we agree with County Court that resentencing was notwarranted under the circumstances presented.
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed.