From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 2003
2 A.D.3d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

rejecting defendant's Apprendi challenge

Summary of this case from Portalatin v. Graham

Opinion

2522, 2522A.

Decided December 18, 2003.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered January 13, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to a term of 16 years to life, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 25, 2003, which denied defendant's motion to set aside the sentence, unanimously affirmed.

Susan Axelrod, for Respondent.

Martin M. Lucente Pro Se, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow, JJ.


The court properly denied defendant's request for a circumstantial evidence charge because the evidence that defendant committed the robbery was both circumstantial and direct ( see People v. Roldan, 88 N.Y.2d 826). In any event, were we to find any error, we would find it to be harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt ( see People v. Brian, 84 N.Y.2d 887, 889).

The court properly denied defendant's motion to set aside his sentence as a discretionary persistent felony offender, made on the ground that the procedure under which it was imposed involved unconstitutional fact-finding by the sentencing court in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey ( 530 U.S. 466). We need not decide whether People v. Rosen ( 96 N.Y.2d 329, cert denied 534 U.S. 899), to the extent that it upholds the constitutionality of the discretionary persistent felony offender procedure, conflicts with Ring v. Arizona ( 536 U.S. 584), because the particular facts upon which the sentencing court based its determination were all permissible under Apprendi, in that they constituted facts found by the jury in the instant case, prior convictions and undisputed matters of record.

The arguments contained in defendant's pro se supplemental brief are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 2003
2 A.D.3d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

rejecting defendant's Apprendi challenge

Summary of this case from Portalatin v. Graham

In People v. Phillips (2 AD3d 278 [1st Dept 2003]), the Appellate Division so held, where "the particular facts upon which the sentencing court based its determination were all permissible under Apprendi, in that they constituted facts found by the jury in the instant case, prior convictions and undisputed matters of record."

Summary of this case from People v. Miles

In People v Phillips (2 AD3d 278 [1st Dept 2003]), the Appellate Division so held, where "the particular facts upon which the sentencing court based its determination were all permissible under Apprendi, in that they constituted facts found by the jury in the instant case, prior convictions and undisputed matters of record."

Summary of this case from People v. Miles

In People v. Phillips (2 AD3d 278 [1st Dept 2003]), the Appellate Division so held, where "the particular facts upon which the sentencing court based its determination were all permissible under Apprendi, in that they constituted facts found by the jury in the instant case, prior convictions and undisputed matters of record."

Summary of this case from People v. Miles
Case details for

People v. Phillips

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM PHILLIPS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 18, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
768 N.Y.S.2d 812

Citing Cases

Besser v. Walsh

On December 18, 2003, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the underlying conviction and the denial of…

Portalatin v. Graham

See N.Y. Penal Law §§ 70.02(1); 70.04(1), (3)(b). Following his sentence, Phillips exhausted his appeals in…