People v. Daniels
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be af firmed. Defendants seek to have their persistent felony offender sentences (Penal Law § 70.10; CPL 400.20) vacated. In contrast to People v Rivera (5 NY3d 61 [2005]), defendants did not preserve their claims under Apprendi v New Jersey (530 US 466 [2000]). The prosecution argues that this failure precludes our review of the issue, while defendants contend that an alleged Apprendi violation goes to the mode of proceedings and does not require preservation. Even if an Apprendi violation may be raised as…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- People v. RosenNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- People v. RiveraNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
3Cited by9 opinions
- People v. QuinonesNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
- People v. GilAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- People v. MadridAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- People v. RiveraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- People v. DingleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.