People v. Suya, 32 Misc. 3d 633

Defendant moved for resentencing under CPL 440.46 as amended by DLRA 3 to a six-year determinate term with two years’ postrelease supervision.
DLRA 3 extends eligibility to class B–D felony drug offenses if certain conditions are met and the defendant is in custody.
Court found defendant ineligible due to an exclusion offense under CPL 440.46 (5) (a) and (b).
Exclusion offenses include second violent felony offenses adjudicated within the relevant look-back period.
A prior 1999 robbery conviction within 10 years of the predicate violent felony conviction triggered the exclusion.
The court denied the CPL 440.46 motion on both eligibility and merits grounds, noting extensive criminal history and disciplinary confinement record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CPL 440.46 (5) look-back starts at filing date.	People contend look-back runs from filing.	Suya argues look-back may be measured differently.	Look-back runs from filing date; defendant ineligible under 5 (a).
Whether the 1999 robbery constitutes an exclusion offense under 5 (b).	Two violent felonies within 10 years qualify as exclusion.	Argues timing or sequencing matters; 1999 conviction not exclusion.	1999 robbery is an exclusion offense; ineligible under 5 (b).
Whether, notwithstanding exclusion, the court could grant CPL 440.46 relief on merits.	DLRA aims to ameliorate sentences for low-level offenders.	Extensive criminal history and institutional discipline justify denial.	Even if eligible, denial warranted due to history and confinement record.

People v Brown, 26 Misc 3d 1204(A) (2010 NY Slip Op 50000(U)) (look-back interpretation favors the filing date for DLRA eligibility)
People v Williams, Sup Ct, NY County, Dec. 23, 2009 (Sup Ct) (natural reading is the filing date return for look-back)
People v Danton, 27 Misc 3d 638 (Sup Ct, NY County 2010) (ambiguous CPL 440.46 (5) (a) interpreted to favor amelioration)