People v. Sanders, 99 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Sanders, 99 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Boyer (ny, 2013-11-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Boyer (2×)
NY · 2013 · confidence medium
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence (see People v Sanders, 99 AD3d 575, 575-576 [1st Dept 2012]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Snipes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
This Court, citing People v Acevedo ( 17 NY3d 297 [2011] ), has held that where a defendant’s resentencing was at the behest of the Division of Parole for purpose of imposing a period of postrelease supervision, the resentencing date controls whether a conviction meets the sequentiality requirement for sentencing as a persistent violent felony offender (see People v Butler, 88 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 992 [2012] ; see also People v Sanders, 99 AD3d 575 [2012]; but see People v Boyer, 91 AD3d 1183 [3d Dept 2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 1024 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Snipes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
This Court, citing People v Acevedo ( 17 NY3d 297 [2011] ), has held that where a defendant’s resentencing was at the behest of the Division of Parole for purpose of imposing a period of postrelease supervision, the resentencing date controls whether a conviction meets the sequentiality requirement for sentencing as a persistent violent felony offender (see People v Butler, 88 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 992 [2012] ; see also People v Sanders, 99 AD3d 575 [2012]; but see People v Boyer, 91 AD3d 1183 [3d Dept 2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 1024 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Snipes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
This Court, citing People v Acevedo ( 17 NY3d 297 [2011]), has held that where a defendant’s resentencing was at the behest of the Division of Parole for purpose of imposing a period of postrelease supervision, the resentencing date controls whether a conviction meets the sequentiality requirement for sentencing as a persistent violent felony offender (see People v Butler, 88 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 992 [2012]; see also People v Sanders, 99 AD3d 575 [2012]; but see People v Boyer, 91 AD3d 1183 [3d Dept 2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 1024 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Snipes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
This Court, citing People v Acevedo ( 17 NY3d 297 [2011]), has held that where a defendant’s resentencing was at the behest of the Division of Parole for purpose of imposing a period of postrelease supervision, the resentencing date controls whether a conviction meets the sequentiality requirement for sentencing as a persistent violent felony offender (see People v Butler, 88 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 992 [2012]; see also People v Sanders, 99 AD3d 575 [2012]; but see People v Boyer, 91 AD3d 1183 [3d Dept 2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 1024 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Equan Sanders
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 18, 2012.
99 A.D.3d 575
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

The court properly adjudicated defendant a second violent felony offender rather than a persistent violent felony offender.[*576] Defendant’s resentencing at the behest of the Division of Parole for the purpose of imposing a period of PRS on one of defendant’s prior violent felony convictions occurred after he committed the instant offense. In this situation, the resentencing date controls whether the conviction meets the sequentiality requirement for sentencing as a persistent violent felony offender (see People v Butler, 88 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 992 [2012]). Concur — Acosta, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Gonzalez, EJ., and Sweeny, J., concur in a separate memorandum by Sweeny, J., as follows: I am constrained by this Court’s decision in People v Butler (88 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 992 [2012]) to affirm. I write separately to voice my concern that this issue is not fully resolved. Butler is at odds with the Second Department case of People v Naughton (93 AD3d 809 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 865 [2012]). Naughton clearly holds, contrary to Butler, that it is irrelevant whether the defendant or the government brought the application for a resentence under People v Sparber (10 NY3d 457 [2008]) and that the original sentence date is always determinative as the predicate for persistent violent felony offender status.

It is apparent from these differing opinions that the decision in People v Acevedo (17 NY3d 297 [2011]) to which both Butler and Naughton refer, did not clarify this question. We look to the Court of Appeals for guidance on this crucial sentencing issue.