Richardson v. State of NY

JOHN J. CONNELL, J. The defendant has made a motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 for a reversal or a reduction of his sentence claiming the sentence was illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law due to its harshness and excessiveness, and so grossly disproportionate to his offense that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The People have opposed the defendant's application on the grounds that the defendant is not presently amenable to the jurisdiction of the court and, in any event, the sentence received by the defendant is not cruel and unusual punishment. In June 1970, the defendant, then known as Christopher Perlstein, was arrested for selling $20 worth of LSD to an undercover police officer while a student at Rochester Institute of Technology (R.I.T.). In March of 1971 a jury convicted him of criminal sale of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree, which was a class D felony. The permissible sentences for that crime included an indeterminate term of incarceration with the New York State Department of Correctional Services of up to seven years, a five-year sentence of probation, or a definite sentence of up to one year in the Monroe County Jail. On March 26, 1971 the defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of zero to four years. The defendant appealed from that judgment and conviction, and on June 25, 1971 the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the judgment (People v Perlstein, 37 AD2d 694). In submitting this factually unusual application, the defendant asks us to turn the clock back to the turbulent 60's and 70's in this country. He asks us to view his actions through the prism of campus turmoil over the Vietnam War and student drug experimentation. He portrays himself as a suburban college student who actively took part in campus demonstrations are captured within 10 years but haven't completed your education or secured a prestigious job, your sentence stands? If you are captured within 20 years but you don't have the wherewithal intellectually, financially, or socially to attain respected social status, your sentence stands? Evenhanded treatment and, therefore, respect for the law in such circumstances would be diminished and increase the potential for obvious injustices. Neither the courts nor the public could rely on the finality of lawfully adjudicated criminal cases. In short, both the reality and the perception of justice would gravely suffer. This is not an easy decision for this court to render or this defendant to comply with. Decisions requiring us to take personal responsibility for our actions and for our roles rarely are the easiest decisions to make. They frequently are the most important ones though. This court does not have the authority to modify the sentence imposed since it was a lawful sentence and did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Commutation of the defendant's sentence does not reside within the powers of the judicial branch of government. Accordingly, the defendant's motion is, in all respects, denied.