People v Scott

Annotate this Case
People v Scott 2019 NY Slip Op 03629 Decided on May 8, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 8, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2016-08077
(Ind. No. 15-00278)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Dangelo Scott, appellant.



Arleen Lewis, Blauvelt, NY, for appellant.

Kevin P. Gilleece, Acting District Attorney, New City, NY (Tina L. Guccione of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (William A. Kelly, J.), rendered June 29, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he is entitled to a hearing to determine whether he was properly sentenced as a second violent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.04[1][b][iv], [v]; CPL 400.15). At the sentencing proceeding, however, after reviewing the predicate felony statement and other information presented by the People regarding the prior conviction and period of incarceration served thereon, the defendant admitted the facts alleged in the predicate felony statement and that the prior conviction was imposed within 10 years before the commission of the current offenses (see Penal Law § 70.04[1][b][iv], [v]). Since the defendant did not controvert any of these allegations, a hearing to determine whether the defendant was a second violent felony offender was not required (see CPL 400.15[4]).

RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.