The People v. Jamel Bell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
----------------------------------------------------------------No. 214
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Jamel Bell,
Appellant.
Peter Theis, for appellant.
Sheryl Feldman, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant challenges his adjudication as a persistent
violent felony offender (Penal Law § 70.08), contending that the
procedure called for by CPL §§ 400.15 and 400.16 deprives him of
his constitutional right to trial by jury.
- 1 -
Defendant's argument
- 2 -
No. 214
is barred by United States v Almendarez-Torres (523 US 224
[1998]), which permits sentencing proceedings in which the fact
of previous criminal convictions is found by a court sitting
without a jury.
Though several of our recent cases rely on
Almendarez-Torres's holding (see People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116
[2009]; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Rosen, 96
NY2d 329 [2001]), defendant now invites us to reject it, and to
hold that the New York State Constitution requires all facts that
may enhance a defendant's sentence, including the fact of a prior
conviction, to be found by a jury.
Defendant would thus have us
go beyond the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Apprendi v
New Jersey (530 US 466 [2000]) and later decisions applying
Apprendi.
We decline defendant's invitation.
We see no reason to
hold that the right of trial by jury under Article I, § 2 of our
Constitution is broader in this respect than the jury trial right
protected by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
Defendant's claim in his pro se brief that he was
deprived of his right to a speedy trial is unpreserved.
His
remaining contentions are without merit.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided December 14, 2010
- 2 -
*
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.
