People v. Brooks

182 A.D.2d 910, 582 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5569
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 2, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 910 (People v. Brooks) 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. Brooks, 182 A.D.2d 910, 582 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered November 20, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

Upon pleading guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment of seven years to life. Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that his [911]*911history of drug dependence, his attendance in a drug rehabilitation program and his cooperation with drug enforcement officials regarding on-going drug investigations constituted extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in his sentence. We disagree. First, defendant derived a benefit by being allowed to plead guilty to a reduced charge, which carried with it a more lenient sentence (compare, Penal Law § 70.00 [3] [a] [i], with Penal Law § 70.06 [4] [a]). In addition, the sentence imposed was within the range promised at the time defendant entered Ms guilty plea (see, People v Spratt, 135 AD2d 983, lv denied 71 NY2d 903). Finally, it has been held that a person’s drug problem does not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in one’s sentence (see, People v Honsinger, 162 AB2d 877, 878, lv denied 76 NY2d 894; People v Mackey, 136 AD2d 780, 781, Iv denied 71 NY2d 899).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

People v. Snickles
206 A.D.2d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Teen
200 A.D.2d 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 A.D.2d 910, 582 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brooks-nyappdiv-1992.