Legal Opinion
People v. Ruz
New York Court of Appeals
Decided January 14, 1988PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant acknowledges that the sentencing court had statutory power to impose the surcharge mandated by Penal Law § 60.35 (see by contrast, People v David, 65 NY2d 809, 810; People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 156). However, he now maintains for the first time that the surcharge was unconstitutional as applied to him, in that it violated the ex post facto prohibition contained in the Federal Constitution (US Const, art I, § 10 [cl 1]). By not bringing this issue to the attention of the court at the time of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. FullerNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- People v. IngramNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- People v. BarnesNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- People v. LemonNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
3Cited by37 opinions
- People v. UdzinskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- People v. HurleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. SullivanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- People v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- El Rhagi v. Christopher Artuz, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional FacilityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.