The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >The People of the State of New York v. Layshawn Mitchell, Also Known as William Taylor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

The People of the State of New York v. Layshawn Mitchell, Also Known as William Taylor

·Judge: Cohen, Lasalle, Mastro, Skelos0 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County...

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County...

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), imposed July 12, 2012, upon his conviction of attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, the resentence being a term of imprisonment of 17 years to life as a persistent violent felony offender, nunc pro tunc to November 13, 2006.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly adjudicated the defendant to be a persistent violent felony offender based on his 1987 and 1999 convictions. The defendant is estopped from challenging his 1987 conviction because he did not challenge its constitutionality in 1998, when it served as the predicate for his sentencing in 1999 as a second violent felony offender (see CPL 400.15 [8]; People v Rodriguez, 49 AD3d 903 [2008]; People v Adelman, 36 AD3d 926 [2007]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, at the 1998 predicate adjudication, he was afforded notice and an *971opportunity to be heard in connection with the 1987 conviction (see People v Luisi, 81 AD3d 980 [2011]). The Supreme Court was not required to explain to him his right to raise a constitutional challenge to the 1987 conviction (see People v Wallace, 188 AD2d 499 [1992]; People v Froats, 163 AD2d 906 [1990]; People v Leonard, 109 AD2d 754 [1985]; People v English, 75 AD2d 981 [1980]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap