LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

PEOPLE v SHANNON Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: PEOPLE, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>089_1000, Felony, Penal Law, Sentencing, Second Felony, Felony Offender, Predicate, Prior Felony, Appellant, Memorandum, Predicate Felonies, Sentencing Purposes, Felony Conviction, Punishment, Respondent, Contends, Vehicle, Traffic Law Felony, Commit, Contrast, Language, Preceding, Legislature, Subdivision, Judge, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley Concur , ContentID: 120251469

Case Documents
1 1997-03-25 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 125378
2 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PENAL LAW
SENTENCING
SECOND FELONY
FELONY OFFENDER
DEFENDANT
PREDICATE
PRIOR FELONY
APPELLANT
MEMORANDUM
PREDICATE FELONIES
SENTENCING PURPOSES
FELONY CONVICTION
PUNISHMENT
RESPONDENT
CONTENDS
VEHICLE
TRAFFIC LAW FELONY
COMMIT
CONTRAST
LANGUAGE
PRECEDING
LEGISLATURE
SUBDIVISION
JUDGE
BELLACOSA
SMITH
LEVINE
CIPARICK
WESLEY CONCUR


  PEOPLE, & C., RESPONDENT, v. KELVIN SHANNON, APPELLANT.

    89 N.Y.2d 1000, 679 N.E.2d 633, 657 N.Y.S.2d 394 (1997).
    March 25, 1997

   4 No. 49 (1997 NY Int. 41)
   Decided March 25, 1997
     _________________________________________________________________

   This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
   publication in the New York Reports.

   Mary Kay Yanik, for Appellant.
   David E. Gann, for Respondent.

   MEMORANDUM:

   The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

   Defendant was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term
   of from two to four years after he pled guilty to criminal sale of a
   controlled substance in the fifth degree. On appeal, defendant argues
   that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender on the
   ground that non-Penal Law felonies cannot be considered predicate
   felonies for sentencing purposes under Penal Law § 70.06(1)(b)(i).
   Defendant contends that the lower courts violated his equal protection
   rights by treating his two prior Vehicle and Traffic Law felony
   convictions as predicate felonies, which subjected him to harsher
   punishment based solely on the order the crimes were committed.

   Contrary to defendant's interpretation, the express language of Penal
   Law § 70.06(1)(b)(i) does not require that the prior felony be one
   defined by the Penal Law for defendant to be classified as a second
   felony offender at sentencing. Rather, the specific omission of any
   restrictive language preceding the definition of what constitutes a
   "predicate felony conviction" for sentencing purposes indicates that
   the Legislature intended to include any prior felony conviction,
   including a Vehicle and Traffic Law felony, as a predicate felony to
   enhance the severity of punishment. This subdivision stands in sharp
   contrast to the preceding subdivision which explicitly limits second
   felony offender status to individuals who commit a "felony defined in
   this chapter" (Penal Law § 70.06(1)(a)). The Legislature designed
   Penal Law § 70.06(1)(b)(i) to punish a Penal Law felony offender more
   harshly based on both the nature of the second felony and the
   commission of any prior felony. The statute serves an important
   deterrent purpose that is neither irrational nor unconstitutional
SNIPPETS:
  • This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • Mary Kay Yanik, for Appellant.
  • David E. Gann, for Respondent.
  • Defendant was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of from two to four
  • defendant argues that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender on the ground
  • Defendant contends that the lower courts violated his equal protection rights by treating his
  • the express language of Penal Law § 70.06does not require that the prior felony be one
  • Rather, the specific omission of any restrictive language preceding the definition of what
  • This subdivision stands in sharp contrast to the preceding subdivision which explicitly
  • Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
  •    |