Published on:

Defense Claims a Reduction in Sentence is Merited


The respondent in this matter are the People of the State of New York. The People of the State of New York are represented by the office of Patrick Henry, District Attorney in Riverhead. Michael Blakey is their counsel. The appellant of the case is Alan M. Buckmaster. He is being represented by Alan Schneier from Valley Stream. The case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

This is a case for appeal initiated by the defendant in regard to a judgment that was issued by the County Court of Suffolk County. Judge Rohl issued the judgment being appealed. The judgment convicted the defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. The defendant pled guilty to this crime.

Case Background

The defendant was indicted for selling and possessing a controlled substance in the first degree. These charges are class A-I felonies. A New York DWI Lawyer said these charges were made after the defendant sold almost 9 ounces of cocaine to an undercover officer on the 23rd of July, in 1986.

During the trial the defendant was given the option to plead guilty to the charges of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. This is considered an A-II felony. In return for the guilty plea the defendant was promised a term of imprisonment for five years to life. This sentence has been imposed.

Case Discussion and Decision

The defendant has raised two constitutional challenges in regard to his sentencing. He states that the sentencing statute that mandates a maximum life sentence for people that are convicted of class A New York DWI Lawyer said felony drug charges is in violation of the constitution. We find that this accusation is without merit. The mandatory maximum life sentence is not considered to be a grossly disproportionate sentence in terms of the crime that was committed. This means that the claim made by the defendant that the punishment for the crime is cruel and unusual is not valid.

The other claim that is made by the defendant is that the mandatory maximum sentence is an illegal deprivation of judicial discretion is also found to be without merit. It has been established that the Legislature is given a large amount of power in connection with prescribing both minimum and maximum sentences. A Nassau County DWI Lawyer said that while the maximum sentence in a case such as this is life, the legislation is given the power to institute a minimum sentence of anywhere from three to eight and a third years.

After carefully reviewing the case for appeal made by the defendant, the court is upholding the initial ruling made in the case. The facts of the case do not warrant any type of reduction in his sentencing as a matter of the interest of justice. The defendant pled guilty to the charges and agreed to the terms of the sentencing at the time he made this plea. This was in his benefit and he cannot argue the case any longer. The appeal is dismissed.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you through any type of legal issue you are involved in. Contact one of our offices located in New York City to set up a time for your free consultation. Our lawyers will sit with you and discuss your case to determine the best course of action.

Posted in: , and
Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information