People v Chambers
2007 NY Slip Op 09321 [45 AD3d 465]
November 27, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Vincent Chambers, Appellant.

[*1]Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City (Gregory S.Chiarello of counsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (T. Charles Won of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), renderedMarch 10, 2006, resentencing defendant, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 25years to life, upon his conviction, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree,unanimously affirmed.

After this Court rejected defendant's original appeal from his conviction (305 AD2d 193[2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 579 [2003]), the trial court granted, on grounds not at issueon the present appeal, defendant's CPL 440.20 motion to set aside sentence, and orderedresentencing, including new proceedings on defendant's persistent violent felony offender status.Defendant contested whether, in fact, he had two or more prior violent felony convictions, andthe court conducted an evidentiary hearing on that issue. The evidence established, beyond areasonable doubt, defendant's identity as the person named in the certificates of conviction. Evenassuming, without deciding, that resort to the testimony of a fingerprint comparison expert wasnecessary in the first place (but see CPL 60.60), we find that the court properly qualifiedthe fingerprint examiner as an expert and accepted his testimony (see e.g. People v Guzman, 4 AD3d196 [2004]; People v Paun, 269 AD2d 546 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 801[2000]). Defendant's arguments to the contrary are without merit.

The procedure under which defendant was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offenderwas not unconstitutional. Defendant was not entitled to a jury determination of the [*2]existence of his prior convictions. We see no reason to limit the ruleof Almendarez-Torres v United States (523 US 224 [1998]) to situations where the factof a prior conviction is undisputed. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan, Gonzalezand Catterson, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.