People v Bazemore
2012 NY Slip Op 08023 [100 AD3d 915]
November 21, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 26, 2012
As corrected through Wednesday, December 26, 2012


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

[*1]Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Martin M. Lucente of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, andMichael Brenner of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.),imposed on September 4, 2008, upon his conviction of robbery in the third degree (two counts),upon a jury verdict, after remittitur from this Court for resentencing (see People v Bazemore, 52 AD3d727 [2008]), the resentence being concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 17years to life.

Ordered that the resentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, byreducing the resentence imposed for the convictions of robbery in the third degree under bothcounts from concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 17 years to life to concurrentindeterminate terms of imprisonment of 15 years to life.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in resentencing the defendant as apersistent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.10 [2]; People v Maxwell, 22 AD3d 607[2005]; People v Perry, 19 AD3d619 [2005]; People v Thomas, 255 AD2d 468 [1998]). The Supreme Court'sconclusion that the nature of the defendant's criminal conduct, his history, and his characterwarranted extended incarceration and life time supervision is supported by the record (seePeople v Maxwell, 22 AD3d at 607; People v Perry, 19 AD3d at 619; People vThomas, 255 AD2d at 469). Nevertheless, under the circumstances of this case, theresentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d80 [1982]).

The defendant's contention that his adjudication as a persistent felony offender wasunconstitutional pursuant to Apprendi v New Jersey (530 US 466 [2000]) is withoutmerit (see People v Battles, 16NY3d 54, 59 [2010], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 123 [2011]; People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116[2009], cert denied 558 US —, 130 S Ct 104 [2009]; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61[2005], cert denied 546 US 984 [2005]; People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001],cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]; People v Watts, 89 AD3d 965, 966 [2011], lv denied 18NY3d 887 [2012]; People vAguayo, 85 AD3d 809, 810 [2011]). Eng, P.J., Balkin, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.


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.