Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
31 New York opinions name it 7 courts 2002–2026 12 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Erlinger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024But in Erlinger , the Court for the first time mandated jury trials for a factual determination of circumstances pertaining not to the present crime, but to a past offense ( see Erlinger [judicial finding that past offenses had been committed on "different occasions"]; see also Erlinger , 602 US at 855 [Kavanaugh, J., dissenting] ["Under Almendarez-Torres , legislatures may assign to judges the task of finding facts related to a defendant's past crimes — that is, to his 'recidivism'" (emphasis added)]; id. at 857 [Kavanaugh, J., dissenting] [" Apprendi drew a clear line between facts about pri 2024But in Erlinger , the Court for the first time mandated jury trials for a factual determination of circumstances pertaining not to the present crime, but to a past offense ( see Erlinger [judicial finding that past offenses had been committed on "different occasions"]; see also Erlinger , 602 US at 855 [Kavanaugh, J., dissenting] ["Under Almendarez-Torres , legislatures may assign to judges the task of finding facts related to a defendant's past crimes — that is, to his 'recidivism'" (emphasis added)]; id. at 857 [Kavanaugh, J., dissenting] [" Apprendi drew a clear line between facts about pri | 4 | 7 |
People v. Riveragreen2 sentences2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept | 3 | 11 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2024In addressing Adelman's habeas petition, the EDNY — which listed the dates of Adelman's prior convictions, and thus, was clearly aware that they fell outside of a straight ten year period from the commission of Adelman's commission of the case before it — held that "[b]ecause Apprendi 'expressly requires submission to a jury of any fact that permits an increase in the maximum penalty for a crime 'other than the fact of a prior conviction'" Boutte , 2008 U.S.Dist LEXIS 59052, 2008 WL 3166696 at 3 (citing Apprend i, 530 U.S. at 490 ) (emphasis in Boutte ), no Apprendi violation occurs, whereas h 2024In addressing Adelman's habeas petition, the EDNY — which listed the dates of Adelman's prior convictions, and thus, was clearly aware that they fell outside of a straight ten year period from the commission of Adelman's commission of the case before it — held that "[b]ecause Apprendi 'expressly requires submission to a jury of any fact that permits an increase in the maximum penalty for a crime 'other than the fact of a prior conviction'" Boutte , 2008 U.S.Dist LEXIS 59052, 2008 WL 3166696 at 3 (citing Apprend i, 530 U.S. at 490 ) (emphasis in Boutte ), no Apprendi violation occurs, whereas h | 3 | 9 |
Blakely v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2017For nearly two decades, the United States Supreme Court has applied the Apprendi rule in cases involving capital punishment (Hurst v Florida, 577 US —, 136 S Ct 616 [2016]; Ring v Arizona, 536 US 584 [2002]), broad judicial discretion to find aggravating factors (Cunningham v California, 549 US 270 [2007]; Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 [2004]), the federal sentencing guidelines (United States v Booker, 543 US 220 [2005]), and mandatory minimum sentences (Al leyne, 570 US —, 133 S Ct 2151 ). 2017For nearly two decades, the United States Supreme Court has applied the Apprendi rule in cases involving capital punishment (Hurst v Florida, 577 US —, 136 S Ct 616 [2016]; Ring v Arizona, 536 US 584 [2002]), broad judicial discretion to find aggravating factors (Cunningham v California, 549 US 270 [2007]; Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 [2004]), the federal sentencing guidelines (United States v Booker, 543 US 220 [2005]), and mandatory minimum sentences (Al leyne, 570 US —, 133 S Ct 2151 ). | 3 | 6 |
United States v. Bookergreen2 sentences2017For nearly two decades, the United States Supreme Court has applied the Apprendi rule in cases involving capital punishment (Hurst v Florida, 577 US —, 136 S Ct 616 [2016]; Ring v Arizona, 536 US 584 [2002]), broad judicial discretion to find aggravating factors (Cunningham v California, 549 US 270 [2007]; Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 [2004]), the federal sentencing guidelines (United States v Booker, 543 US 220 [2005]), and mandatory minimum sentences (Al leyne, 570 US —, 133 S Ct 2151 ). 2017For nearly two decades, the United States Supreme Court has applied the Apprendi rule in cases involving capital punishment (Hurst v Florida, 577 US —, 136 S Ct 616 [2016]; Ring v Arizona, 536 US 584 [2002]), broad judicial discretion to find aggravating factors (Cunningham v California, 549 US 270 [2007]; Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 [2004]), the federal sentencing guidelines (United States v Booker, 543 US 220 [2005]), and mandatory minimum sentences (Al leyne, 570 US —, 133 S Ct 2151 ). | 3 | 6 |
Missouri v. Fryegreen2 sentences2024To apply Erlinger retroactively would upend countless sentences imposed over many decades following convictions both by plea and after trial ( see Baret , 23 NY3d at 800 ["the sheer volume of prosecutions disposed of by guilty plea ( see Missouri v Frye , 566 US 134, 143 [2012] ['(N)inety-four percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas']), weigh heavily against retroactive application"]). 2024To apply Erlinger retroactively would upend countless sentences imposed over many decades following convictions both by plea and after trial ( see Baret , 23 NY3d at 800 ["the sheer volume of prosecutions disposed of by guilty plea ( see Missouri v Frye , 566 US 134, 143 [2012] ['(N)inety-four percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas']), weigh heavily against retroactive application"]). | 3 | 3 |
Spencer v. Texasgreen2 sentences2024Moreover, insofar as Erlinger expressly contemplated that its holding that juries must decide even recidivist sentencing questions should best be handled through bifurcated trials ( see 602 US at 847 [a "common and often fairest practice" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)]; id. at 848 ["States that have not already done so can likewise adjust to any state-law implications of our straightforward application of Apprendi to (tolling requirements)" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)]) even though bifurcated trials have been and remain "rare in our jurisprudence; they 2024Moreover, insofar as Erlinger expressly contemplated that its holding that juries must decide even recidivist sentencing questions should best be handled through bifurcated trials ( see 602 US at 847 [a "common and often fairest practice" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)]; id. at 848 ["States that have not already done so can likewise adjust to any state-law implications of our straightforward application of Apprendi to (tolling requirements)" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)]) even though bifurcated trials have been and remain "rare in our jurisprudence; they | 3 | 3 |
People v. Baretgreen2 sentences2024To apply Erlinger retroactively would upend countless sentences imposed over many decades following convictions both by plea and after trial ( see Baret , 23 NY3d at 800 ["the sheer volume of prosecutions disposed of by guilty plea ( see Missouri v Frye , 566 US 134, 143 [2012] ['(N)inety-four percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas']), weigh heavily against retroactive application"]). 2024To apply Erlinger retroactively would upend countless sentences imposed over many decades following convictions both by plea and after trial ( see Baret , 23 NY3d at 800 ["the sheer volume of prosecutions disposed of by guilty plea ( see Missouri v Frye , 566 US 134, 143 [2012] ['(N)inety-four percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas']), weigh heavily against retroactive application"]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Rosengreen2 sentences2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept | 2 | 9 |
People v. Leongreen2 sentences2025See, People v Leon, 10 NY3d 122, 126 (2008) (denying Apprendi challenge; finding that the "who, what, when and where" of a prior conviction were so basic as to be "implicit" and wholly within the ability of a sentencing judge); People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935, 936 (2010) (denying Almendarez-Torres challenge). 2025See, People v Leon, 10 NY3d 122, 126 (2008) (denying Apprendi challenge; finding that the "who, what, when and where" of a prior conviction were so basic as to be "implicit" and wholly within the ability of a sentencing judge); People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935, 936 (2010) (denying Almendarez-Torres challenge). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Westgreen2 sentences2024In People v. West , 5 NY3d 740, 741 (2005), the Court of Appeals declined to reach the issue of whether a defendant could raise an Apprendi argument for the first time on a motion to set aside his sentence pursuant to CPL § 440.20, in view of the Court's holding that New York's persistent felony offender statute is constitutional. 2024In People v. West , 5 NY3d 740, 741 (2005), the Court of Appeals declined to reach the issue of whether a defendant could raise an Apprendi argument for the first time on a motion to set aside his sentence pursuant to CPL § 440.20, in view of the Court's holding that New York's persistent felony offender statute is constitutional. | 2 | 3 |
Cunningham v. Californiagreen2 sentences2017For nearly two decades, the United States Supreme Court has applied the Apprendi rule in cases involving capital punishment (Hurst v Florida, 577 US —, 136 S Ct 616 [2016]; Ring v Arizona, 536 US 584 [2002]), broad judicial discretion to find aggravating factors (Cunningham v California, 549 US 270 [2007]; Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 [2004]), the federal sentencing guidelines (United States v Booker, 543 US 220 [2005]), and mandatory minimum sentences (Al leyne, 570 US —, 133 S Ct 2151 ). 2017For nearly two decades, the United States Supreme Court has applied the Apprendi rule in cases involving capital punishment (Hurst v Florida, 577 US —, 136 S Ct 616 [2016]; Ring v Arizona, 536 US 584 [2002]), broad judicial discretion to find aggravating factors (Cunningham v California, 549 US 270 [2007]; Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 [2004]), the federal sentencing guidelines (United States v Booker, 543 US 220 [2005]), and mandatory minimum sentences (Al leyne, 570 US —, 133 S Ct 2151 ). | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Bennettgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Kozlowskigreen | 2 | 2 |
People v. Kellygreen2 sentences2024See also, People v. Kelly , 16 NY3d 803, 804 (2011) (defendant's Apprendi challenge to New York's persistent violent felony offender statute is unpreserved); People v. Finkelstein , 28 NY3d 345, 348 (2016) ("defendant never objected to his conviction or sentence on Apprendi grounds, rendering that issue unpreserved for our review."); People v. Scocozza , 221 AD3d 1027 (2d Dept. 2023) (defendant's challenge to the procedure used to adjudicate him as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to raise any objection at sentencing.); People v. Brown , 2024See also, People v. Kelly , 16 NY3d 803, 804 (2011) (defendant's Apprendi challenge to New York's persistent violent felony offender statute is unpreserved); People v. Finkelstein , 28 NY3d 345, 348 (2016) ("defendant never objected to his conviction or sentence on Apprendi grounds, rendering that issue unpreserved for our review."); People v. Scocozza , 221 AD3d 1027 (2d Dept. 2023) (defendant's challenge to the procedure used to adjudicate him as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to raise any objection at sentencing.); People v. Brown , | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Finkelsteingreen | 2 | 2 |
People v. Portogreen2 sentences2024Yet again, in People v. Porto , 16 NY3d 93, 102 (2010), the Court of Appeals held that the defendant's " Apprendi challenge to New York's mandatory persistent violent felony offender statutes [is] meritless." Although the decision itself does not specify the exact nature of the Apprendi challenge, the defendant's appellate brief makes clear that he argued that judicial fact finding of "two sequential violent felony convictions", the "requirement that sentence for the prior conviction must have been imposed not more than ten years before the instant felony convictions (§ 70.04 ((1)(b)(iv)), and 2024Yet again, in People v. Porto , 16 NY3d 93, 102 (2010), the Court of Appeals held that the defendant's " Apprendi challenge to New York's mandatory persistent violent felony offender statutes [is] meritless." Although the decision itself does not specify the exact nature of the Apprendi challenge, the defendant's appellate brief makes clear that he argued that judicial fact finding of "two sequential violent felony convictions", the "requirement that sentence for the prior conviction must have been imposed not more than ten years before the instant felony convictions (§ 70.04 ((1)(b)(iv)), and | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Bleakleygreen | 2 | 2 |
Almendarez-Torres v. United Statesred2 sentences2026"Virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea)" ( id. at 834 [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]). [*3] The Erlinger majority also discussed its decision in Almendarez-Torres ( 523 US at 224 ), in which it announced a narrow exception to the Apprendi rule. 2026"Virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea)" ( id. at 834 [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]). [*3] The Erlinger majority also discussed its decision in Almendarez-Torres ( 523 US at 224 ), in which it announced a narrow exception to the Apprendi rule. | 1 | 5 |
The People v. Michael E. Prindlegreen2 sentences2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept | 1 | 5 |
People v. Bellgreen2 sentences2025See, People v Leon, 10 NY3d 122, 126 (2008) (denying Apprendi challenge; finding that the "who, what, when and where" of a prior conviction were so basic as to be "implicit" and wholly within the ability of a sentencing judge); People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935, 936 (2010) (denying Almendarez-Torres challenge). 2025See, People v Leon, 10 NY3d 122, 126 (2008) (denying Apprendi challenge; finding that the "who, what, when and where" of a prior conviction were so basic as to be "implicit" and wholly within the ability of a sentencing judge); People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935, 936 (2010) (denying Almendarez-Torres challenge). | 1 | 5 |
People v. Felicianogreen2 sentences2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept | 1 | 4 |
Ring v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2017For nearly two decades, the United States Supreme Court has applied the Apprendi rule in cases involving capital punishment (Hurst v Florida, 577 US —, 136 S Ct 616 [2016]; Ring v Arizona, 536 US 584 [2002]), broad judicial discretion to find aggravating factors (Cunningham v California, 549 US 270 [2007]; Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 [2004]), the federal sentencing guidelines (United States v Booker, 543 US 220 [2005]), and mandatory minimum sentences (Al leyne, 570 US —, 133 S Ct 2151 ). 2017For nearly two decades, the United States Supreme Court has applied the Apprendi rule in cases involving capital punishment (Hurst v Florida, 577 US —, 136 S Ct 616 [2016]; Ring v Arizona, 536 US 584 [2002]), broad judicial discretion to find aggravating factors (Cunningham v California, 549 US 270 [2007]; Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 [2004]), the federal sentencing guidelines (United States v Booker, 543 US 220 [2005]), and mandatory minimum sentences (Al leyne, 570 US —, 133 S Ct 2151 ). | 1 | 4 |
| Hurst v. Floridagreen | 1 | 2 |
| Southern Union Co. v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Battlesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| The People v. Dwight Giles / The People v. Sean Hawkinsgreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Alterigreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Adamsgreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Pequegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Oregon v. Icegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Flynngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Washington v. Recuencogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. . Walkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Ramon E. Santiago, AKA \Yoyo\""green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. William Anthony Johnson (04-5110/6161) and Christopher L. Stone (04-5146)green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Westgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Cherrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Iannonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Rodriguezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Miles
green
2 sentences2025The interpretation the Defendant wishes this Court to adopt has never been articulated by the New York Court of Appeals in its post- Apprendi analysis, nor has the U.S. Supreme Court ever addressed this specific factual circumstance to the contrary in its post- Apprendi caselaw (while, again, continuing to acknowledge the existence of the Almendarez-Torres exception in Erlinger ). [For an interesting analysis of this issue that this Court finds persuasive, see People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271, 283 , 783 NYS2d 748 (NY Sup Ct, 2004), affd 49 AD3d 446 , 853 NYS2d 548 (2008), lv denied 10 NY3d 867 , 2025The interpretation the Defendant wishes this Court to adopt has never been articulated by the New York Court of Appeals in its post- Apprendi analysis, nor has the U.S. Supreme Court ever addressed this specific factual circumstance to the contrary in its post- Apprendi caselaw (while, again, continuing to acknowledge the existence of the Almendarez-Torres exception in Erlinger ). [For an interesting analysis of this issue that this Court finds persuasive, see People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271, 283 , 783 NYS2d 748 (NY Sup Ct, 2004), affd 49 AD3d 446 , 853 NYS2d 548 (2008), lv denied 10 NY3d 867 , | 6 | 2024–2025 |
In re Rasaad DeF.
green
2 sentences2025The interpretation the Defendant wishes this Court to adopt has never been articulated by the New York Court of Appeals in its post- Apprendi analysis, nor has the U.S. Supreme Court ever addressed this specific factual circumstance to the contrary in its post- Apprendi caselaw (while, again, continuing to acknowledge the existence of the Almendarez-Torres exception in Erlinger ). [For an interesting analysis of this issue that this Court finds persuasive, see People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271, 283 , 783 NYS2d 748 (NY Sup Ct, 2004), affd 49 AD3d 446 , 853 NYS2d 548 (2008), lv denied 10 NY3d 867 , 2025The interpretation the Defendant wishes this Court to adopt has never been articulated by the New York Court of Appeals in its post- Apprendi analysis, nor has the U.S. Supreme Court ever addressed this specific factual circumstance to the contrary in its post- Apprendi caselaw (while, again, continuing to acknowledge the existence of the Almendarez-Torres exception in Erlinger ). [For an interesting analysis of this issue that this Court finds persuasive, see People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271, 283 , 783 NYS2d 748 (NY Sup Ct, 2004), affd 49 AD3d 446 , 853 NYS2d 548 (2008), lv denied 10 NY3d 867 , | 6 | 2024–2025 |
People v. Quinones
green
2 sentences2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept | 5 | 2009–2024 |
People v. Sweeper
green
2 sentences2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept | 4 | 2024–2025 |
People v. Frazier
green
2 sentences2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept | 4 | 2024–2025 |
Harari v. Davis
green
2 sentences2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept | 3 | 2024–2024 |
Teague v. Lane
green
2 sentences2024Moreover, insofar as Erlinger expressly contemplated that its holding that juries must decide even recidivist sentencing questions should best be handled through bifurcated trials ( see 602 US at 847 [a "common and often fairest practice" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)]; id. at 848 ["States that have not already done so can likewise adjust to any state-law implications of our straightforward application of Apprendi to (tolling requirements)" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)]) even though bifurcated trials have been and remain "rare in our jurisprudence; they 2024Moreover, insofar as Erlinger expressly contemplated that its holding that juries must decide even recidivist sentencing questions should best be handled through bifurcated trials ( see 602 US at 847 [a "common and often fairest practice" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)]; id. at 848 ["States that have not already done so can likewise adjust to any state-law implications of our straightforward application of Apprendi to (tolling requirements)" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)]) even though bifurcated trials have been and remain "rare in our jurisprudence; they | 3 | 2024–2024 |
In re the Estate of Chabrier
green
2 sentences2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept | 3 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Wilkonson
green
2 sentences2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept | 3 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Ray
neutral
2 sentences2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2024People v Rosen , 96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People v Rivera , 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Quinones , 12 NY3d 116 [2009]; People v Sweeper , 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Bell , 15 NY3d 935 [2010]; People v Frazier , 16 NY3d 36 [2010]; People v Prindle , 29 NY3d 463 [2017]; People v Grivas , 281 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Wilkonson , 281 AD2d 373 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Melendez , 282 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2001]; [*5]People v Feliciano , 285 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 2001]; People v Mendoza , 59 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Miles , 5 Misc 3d 271 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004], affd 49 AD3d 446 [1st Dept | 3 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Scocozza neutral | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Jennings
neutral
2 sentences2024See also, People v. Kelly , 16 NY3d 803, 804 (2011) (defendant's Apprendi challenge to New York's persistent violent felony offender statute is unpreserved); People v. Finkelstein , 28 NY3d 345, 348 (2016) ("defendant never objected to his conviction or sentence on Apprendi grounds, rendering that issue unpreserved for our review."); People v. Scocozza , 221 AD3d 1027 (2d Dept. 2023) (defendant's challenge to the procedure used to adjudicate him as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to raise any objection at sentencing.); People v. Brown , 2024See also, People v. Kelly , 16 NY3d 803, 804 (2011) (defendant's Apprendi challenge to New York's persistent violent felony offender statute is unpreserved); People v. Finkelstein , 28 NY3d 345, 348 (2016) ("defendant never objected to his conviction or sentence on Apprendi grounds, rendering that issue unpreserved for our review."); People v. Scocozza , 221 AD3d 1027 (2d Dept. 2023) (defendant's challenge to the procedure used to adjudicate him as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to raise any objection at sentencing.); People v. Brown , | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| Alleyne v. United States green | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Battles green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Black red | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Daniels green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Rawlins green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Sandstrom v. Montana green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| United States v. Tony Lee Thompson green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Mullaney v. Wilbur green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Jones v. United States green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| cluster 790405 green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Rosso v. Beer Garden, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| United States v. Matthews green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Hurtado v. California green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Albright v. Oliver green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Harris v. United States red | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| United States v. Jack Bearden green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| United States v. Robert U. Syme green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| United States v. Arthur Schuyler Ross green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.