18 Cited authorities

Jones v. Cunningham
371 U.S. 236 (1963) Cited 1,826 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prisoner who had been placed on parole was still "in custody" under his unexpired sentence
People v. Paulin
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5544 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 137 times
Holding that although drug offenders who have committed parole violations are not statutorily ineligible for resentencing: “[i]t may be, of course, that many parole violators have shown by their conduct that they do not deserve relief from their sentences. .... if that is the case, courts can deny their resentencing applications”
People v. Utsey
7 N.Y.3d 398 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 119 times
Noting that the statute includes "ameliorative provisions designed to afford distinct sentencing relief to defendants who committed their crimes prior to its effective date"
People v. Behlog
74 N.Y.2d 237 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 126 times
In Behlog, supra, Judge Hancock, writing for the unanimous New York Court of Appeals, noted that savings clauses were enacted principally to avoid the incongruous results of a common law rule which allowed offenders to go unpunished when a criminal statute was repealed or when the punishment was increased.
People v. Sosa
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1101 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 45 times
Noting that the 2009 DLRA should be interpreted in a manner "consistent with the legislation's necessarily broad remedial objectives in addressing the sequelae of the prior sentencing regimen and should not be effectively nullified as a matter of statutory interpretation"
People v. Lexington 61st Assoc
38 N.Y.2d 588 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 62 times
In People v. Lexington Sixty-first Associates., 38 N.Y.2d 588, 381 N.Y.S.2d 836, 840, 345 N.E.2d 307 (1976), the New York Court of Appeals held that the Martin Act prohibited "deceitful practices".
People v. Pomales
35 Misc. 3d 444 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012) Cited 7 times
2012-02-17 The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Benjamin POMALES, Defendant. Robert T. Johnson, Bronx County District Attorney, Attention: A.D.A. Nikki R. Harding, Bronx. Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, Attention: Elizabeth Mosher, Esq., New York. BARBARA F. NEWMAN Robert T. Johnson, Bronx County District Attorney, Attention: A.D.A. Nikki R. Harding, Bronx. Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, Attention: Elizabeth Mosher, Esq., New York. BARBARA F. NEWMAN, J. Pursuant
People v. Lankford
35 Misc. 3d 418 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012) Cited 5 times
No. 929–2001. 2012-02-9 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ramell LANKFORD, Defendant. Robert T. Johnson, Bronx County District Attorney, by Nikki Harding, Esq., Assistant District Attorney, for the People. Robert S. Dean, Esq., Elizabeth Moser, Esq. Center for Appellate Litigation, New York, for Defendant. DOMINIC R. MASSARO Robert T. Johnson, Bronx County District Attorney, by Nikki Harding, Esq., Assistant District Attorney, for the People. Robert S. Dean, Esq., Elizabeth Moser
Matter of Hawkins v. Coughlin
72 N.Y.2d 158 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 29 times
Decided July 12, 1988 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Eugene J. Berkowitz, J. Lynn W.L. Fahey and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Burton Herman of counsel), for Thomas A. Coughlin, III, respondent. Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (John Hogrogian of counsel), for Jacqueline McMickens, respondent. ALEXANDER, J. Petitioner, an inmate at a State correctional institution, was convicted of robbery, incarcerated
People v. Danton
36 Misc. 3d 898 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012) Cited 2 times
2012-07-18 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Claude DANTON, Defendant. Barbara Zolot, Esq., David Klem, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, New York, for Defendant. David Casanova, Esq., Assistant District Attorney, Office of the New York County District Attorney, New York, for Prosecution. MARCY L. KAHN Barbara Zolot, Esq., David Klem, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, New York, for Defendant.David Casanova, Esq., Assistant District Attorney, Office of the New York County
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,060 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"
Section 259-I - Procedures for the conduct of the work of the state board of parole
N.Y. Exec. Law § 259-I Cited 1,636 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that harshest penalty for violating post-release supervision served after determinate prison sentence is “reincarceration up to the balance of the remaining period of post-release supervision, not to exceed five years”

The People, Appellant,v.Jarrod Brown, Respondent.

18 Cited authorities

Holding that a prisoner who had been placed on parole was still "in custody" under his unexpired sentence

Noting that the statute includes "ameliorative provisions designed to afford distinct sentencing relief to defendants who committed their crimes prior to its effective date"

Noting that the 2009 DLRA should be interpreted in a manner "consistent with the legislation's necessarily broad remedial objectives in addressing the sequelae of the prior sentencing regimen and should not be effectively nullified as a matter of statutory interpretation"

In People v. Lexington Sixty-first Associates., 38 N.Y.2d 588, 381 N.Y.S.2d 836, 840, 345 N.E.2d 307 (1976), the New York Court of Appeals held that the Martin Act prohibited "deceitful practices".

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Stating that harshest penalty for violating post-release supervision served after determinate prison sentence is “reincarceration up to the balance of the remaining period of post-release supervision, not to exceed five years”