People v. Cass

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cass

228 A.D.2d 448, 643 N.Y.2d 645, 643 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6200

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

DecidedJune 3, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 448 (People v. Cass) 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. Cass, 228 A.D.2d 448, 643 N.Y.2d 645, 643 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The court’s deferral of sentencing on Indictment No. N12580/92 to allow it to monitor the defendant’s rehabilitative progress was not tantamount to illegal " 'interim probation’ ” (People v Avery, 85 NY2d 503, 505). Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plea agreement on that indictment, conditioned on the successful completion of a drug treatment program, was not beyond the Supreme Court’s authority at the [449]*449time the instant agreement was negotiated (see, People v Avery, supra, at 508). Accordingly, the court did not err in enhancing the defendant’s sentence on Indictment No. N12580/92 when he failed to successfully complete the program without offering him the opportunity to withdraw his plea.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

The court’s deferral of sentencing on Indictment No. N12580/92 to allow it to monitor the defendant’s rehabilitative progress was not tantamount to illegal " 'interim probation’ ” (People v Avery, 85 NY2d 503, 505). Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plea agreement on that indictment, conditioned on the successful completion of a drug treatment program, was not beyond the Supreme Court’s authority at the [449]*449time the instant agreement was negotiated (see, People v Avery, supra, at 508). Accordingly, the court did not err in enhancing the defendant’s sentence on Indictment No. N12580/92 when he failed to successfully complete the program without offering him the opportunity to withdraw his plea.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 448, 643 N.Y.2d 645, 643 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cass-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack