Source: http://makingreformreality.blogspot.com/2011/01/
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 10:40:01
Document Index: 790095263

Matched Legal Cases: ['§440', '§440', '§440', '§440', '§440', '§440', '§440']

Making Drug Law Reform A Reality: January 2011
Conditional sealing is available not only to cases arising under CPL Article 216, but also to cases diverted to “one of the programs heretofore known as drug treatment alternative to prison [D-tap] or another judicially sanctioned drug treatment program of similar duration, requirements and level of supervision” (CPL 160.58(1)). Because the D-tap program started in 1990, any defendant who successfully completed a D-tap or similar program and who is otherwise eligible for conditional sealing may request sealing pursuant to CPL 160.58 Colodner July 7, 2009 memo, p. 4, footnote 6 [emphasis supplied]
the sealing may be done in cases where the defendant has been convicted and sentenced after successfully completing a judicial diversion program, or a drug treatment program that was in existence prior to the judicial diversion program. Thus this provision allows defendants who have completed drug treatment in existing drug treatment courts around the state to immediately file motions for conditional sealing.New York Criminal Law Newsletter, Fall 2009, page 6 [emphasis supplied]
The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) also has indicated its belief that Conditional Sealing eligibility is retroactive. DCJS has tracked implementation of the 2009 DLRA, including Conditional Sealing, and has provided quarterly briefings CCA staff members have attended. These briefings reveal two important points. First, since October 2009 (the date of enactment of the Conditional Sealing statute), there have been several Conditional Sealing applications granted across the State. Given that most Judicial Diversion, drug court, and district attorney sponsored diversion programs take 18-24 months to complete, it is not conceivable that these Conditional Sealings were granted prospectively; that is, they must have been granted retroactively for completion of judicially sanctioned diversion programs that began (and may have been completed) prior to the effective date of Conditional Sealing statute. Second, at each of these briefings, Sean Byrnes, Acting Commissioner of DCJS, has evinced his belief that Conditional Sealing is retroactive, stating that his agency was prepared for even more Conditional Sealing applications to be granted in the months immediately following the effective date of Conditional Sealing.
CPL §440.46 Resentencings: Peter Preiser’s revised 10 year look back commentary
CPL §440.46(1) allows for the resentencing of “Any person in the custody of the department of correctional services convicted of a class B felony offense defined in article two hundred twenty of the penal law which was committed prior to January thirteenth, two thousand five, who is serving an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term of more than three years” except as is provided in CPL §440.46(5).
CPL §440.46(5)(a) defines an “exclusion offense”, in part, as one of certain crimes for which the person was “previously convicted within the preceding ten years…”. In an effort to limit the reach of CPL §440.46, some DAs have argued that the ten year look back should be measured from the date of commission of the drug offense rather than from the filing date of the resentencing application. Most trial courts rejected this argument, holding that the ten year look back should be measured from the date of the resentencing application. A limited number of trial courts, including one in the 4th Department, held otherwise. Currently the issue is pending in the 1st Department (on an appeal from the prosecution where the resentencing application was granted) and in the 4th Department (on an appeal from the defendant where resentencing was denied) Some judges and District Attorneys have cited to the McKinney’s CPL §440.46 commentary authored by Peter Preiser to support their more limited reading of the statute, even as defense advocates argued that the appropriate date for the look back is the date of the filing for resentence.
In the 2009 commentary Mr. Preiser took the more restrictive position that the 10 year look back should be measured from the time of the conviction for the potential exclusion offense to the date of the commission of the drug offense for which the defendant is seeking resentencing, as opposed to the date of the filing for resentence.
Upon further review, and to his credit, Mr. Preiser has recently amended his CPL §440.46 commentary:
“In reviewing my Practice Commentary of 2009 and some of the opinions that have struggled to interpret the time period for exclusion set forth in subdivision 5(a), it occurred to me that while the statement I made as to the calculation of the time between the crimes was not incorrect, it certainly was an inadequate interpretation of the time period intended for determining “exclusion” from eligibility, which is more properly related to the date of defendant’s application for resentence. Please accept this attempt to be more explicit, which is incorporated in a reproduction of the 2009 commentary, edited in that regard.”
The commentary is now edited to read in pertinent part:
“As I read the statute, the paragraph (a) exclusion for a previous conviction within the preceding ten years means from the date of the predicate sentence to the date of the present application for resentencing on the Class B felony, less time spent under incarceration between commission of the predicate and present crimes.” Advocates should put Mr. Preiser’s candid “attempt to be more explicit” to good use.