People v. Drew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Drew

45 A.D.3d 441, 844 N.Y.S.2d 871

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 441 (People v. Drew) 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. Drew, 45 A.D.3d 441, 844 N.Y.S.2d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered January 26, 2006, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant violated his plea agreement by being convicted of additional crimes while awaiting sentencing. He did not preserve his present argument that the court violated his due process rights by imposing an enhanced sentence, based on the breach of the agreement, without offering him the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see e.g. People v Almestica, 43 AD3d 797 [2007]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find it without merit. The court made clear to defendant the consequences of violating his plea agreement. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered January 26, 2006, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant violated his plea agreement by being convicted of additional crimes while awaiting sentencing. He did not preserve his present argument that the court violated his due process rights by imposing an enhanced sentence, based on the breach of the agreement, without offering him the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see e.g. People v Almestica, 43 AD3d 797 [2007]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find it without merit. The court made clear to defendant the consequences of violating his plea agreement. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 441, 844 N.Y.S.2d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-drew-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack