People v. Chisholm
This text of 54 A.D.3d 769 (People v. Chisholm) 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.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County [770]*770Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered February 9, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (four counts), attempted burglary in the second degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not entitled to have the sentencing court direct that he be enrolled in a comprehensive alcohol and substance abuse treatment program while incarcerated, since he was not convicted of a controlled substance or marihuana offense, as required by the statute permitting such placement in the sentencing court’s discretion (see Penal Law § 60.04 [6]; People v Colt, 39 AD3d 770 [2007]). We reject the defendant’s contention that the County Court nevertheless had the discretion to direct such an enrollment, absent legislative authorization therefor.
There are no circumstances present in this case which would warrant disturbing the sentence imposed, which was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Miller, Carni and Eng, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
54 A.D.3d 769, 862 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chisholm-nyappdiv-2008.