People v. Floyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Floyd

306 A.D.2d 496, 761 N.Y.S.2d 836

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

DecidedJune 23, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 496 (People v. Floyd) 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. Floyd, 306 A.D.2d 496, 761 N.Y.S.2d 836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered May 24, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal does not foreclose review of his contention that he did not violate a condition of his plea (see People v Saad, 286 AD2d 782 [2001]). The defendant violated the terms of his plea agreement by failing to fully comply with the requirements of the Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime Program (see People v Owens, 294 AD2d 603 [2002]). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying him another opportunity to complete the drug treatment program. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano, Schmidt and Mastro, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered May 24, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal does not foreclose review of his contention that he did not violate a condition of his plea (see People v Saad, 286 AD2d 782 [2001]). The defendant violated the terms of his plea agreement by failing to fully comply with the requirements of the Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime Program (see People v Owens, 294 AD2d 603 [2002]). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying him another opportunity to complete the drug treatment program. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 496, 761 N.Y.S.2d 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-floyd-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack