People v. Fauntleroy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fauntleroy

290 A.D.2d 563, 737 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 743

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 563 (People v. Fauntleroy) 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. Fauntleroy, 290 A.D.2d 563, 737 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered September 19, 2000, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). The defendant’s attorney negotiated an advantageous plea agreement that limited the defendant’s exposure to any imprisonment by permitting him the opportunity to complete a drug treatment program (see, People v Mobley, 221 AD2d 376). In addition, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was not provided with proper written notification of his termination from the drug treatment program (see, 14 NYCRR 1020.9 [f] [2], [3]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered September 19, 2000, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). The defendant’s attorney negotiated an advantageous plea agreement that limited the defendant’s exposure to any imprisonment by permitting him the opportunity to complete a drug treatment program (see, People v Mobley, 221 AD2d 376). In addition, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was not provided with proper written notification of his termination from the drug treatment program (see, 14 NYCRR 1020.9 [f] [2], [3]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 563, 737 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fauntleroy-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack