People v. Anonymous

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Anonymous

305 A.D.2d 156, 757 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4959

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 6, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 156 (People v. Anonymous) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Anonymous, 305 A.D.2d 156, 757 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4959 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme [157]*157Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered September 8, 2000, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 27, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, unanimously affirmed.

Under the terms of defendant’s cooperation agreement and appeal waiver, the only issue properly before this Court is whether the People acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in determining whether defendant qualified for lenient treatment. Defendant waived a judicial determination of any factual issues concerning his compliance or noncompliance with the agreement (see People v Johnson, 291 AD2d 245 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 677 [2002]; People v Anonymous, 265 AD2d 200 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 916 [2000]). The People’s determination that defendant breached the agreement by failing to maintain contact with the police was made in good faith and was not arbitrary or capricious. For the same reasons, the court properly denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lemer and Gonzalez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme [157]*157Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered September 8, 2000, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 27, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, unanimously affirmed.

Under the terms of defendant’s cooperation agreement and appeal waiver, the only issue properly before this Court is whether the People acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in determining whether defendant qualified for lenient treatment. Defendant waived a judicial determination of any factual issues concerning his compliance or noncompliance with the agreement (see People v Johnson, 291 AD2d 245 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 677 [2002]; People v Anonymous, 265 AD2d 200 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 916 [2000]). The People’s determination that defendant breached the agreement by failing to maintain contact with the police was made in good faith and was not arbitrary or capricious. For the same reasons, the court properly denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lemer and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 156, 757 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-anonymous-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack