Opinion
03-24-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert SAFFOLD, Defendant–Appellant.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Evan Hannay of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Evan Hannay of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND NEMOYER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from an order denying his application for resentencing pursuant to the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act (see CPL 440.46 ), defendant contends that County Court erred in concluding that certain factors overcame the statutory presumption in favor of resentencing. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's application.
It is well settled that a "defendant who is eligible for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 enjoys a statutory presumption in favor of resentencing ... However, resentencing is not automatic, and the determination is left to the discretion of the" sentencing court (People v. Bethea, 145 A.D.3d 738, 738, 41 N.Y.S.3d 899 ; see People v. Arroyo, 99 A.D.3d 515, 515, 952 N.Y.S.2d 42, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1059, 962 N.Y.S.2d 610, 985 N.E.2d 920 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that "substantial justice dictated denial of resentencing, given defendant's violent criminal history and poor prison disciplinary record" (People v. Alvarez, 94 A.D.3d 587, 587, 942 N.Y.S.2d 351, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 956, 950 N.Y.S.2d 108, 973 N.E.2d 206 ; see People v. Welch, 110 A.D.3d 1453, 1453, 971 N.Y.S.2d 925, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1044, 981 N.Y.S.2d 378, 4 N.E.3d 390 ; People v. Gatewood, 87 A.D.3d 825, 826, 928 N.Y.S.2d 485, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 903, 933 N.Y.S.2d 658, 957 N.E.2d 1162 ), and "the seriousness of the instant offense" (People v. Parker, 107 A.D.3d 1017, 1019, 967 N.Y.S.2d 763, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1076, 974 N.Y.S.2d 325, 997 N.E.2d 150 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.