People v. Griffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Griffin

92 A.D.3d 973, 937 N.Y.2d 468

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 973 (People v. Griffin) 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. Griffin, 92 A.D.3d 973, 937 N.Y.2d 468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that her sentence is harsh and excessive insofar as County Court directed that the sentence run consecutively to the sentence previously imposed for driving while intoxicated. We find this argument to be unpersuasive. Although defendant was given many opportunities to address her substance abuse problems, she repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of the treatment program and failed to appear in court even after a warrant was issued for her arrest. Moreover, she fully knew that the court could impose a term of imprisonment that it deemed proper in the event that she did not successfully complete the program, and the disposition of the driving while intoxicated charge was a separate matter and not part of the plea agreement. In view of the foregoing, among other things, the imposition of a consecutive sentence was entirely appropriate (see People v Reynoso, 11 AD3d 719, 720 [2004]), and we find no extraordinary circumstances nor [974]*974any abuse of discretion warranting a modification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Mason, 2 AD3d 1207, 1207 [2003]; People v Brooks, 283 AD2d 776, 776-777 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 916 [2001]).

Mercure, A.EJ., Peters, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that her sentence is harsh and excessive insofar as County Court directed that the sentence run consecutively to the sentence previously imposed for driving while intoxicated. We find this argument to be unpersuasive. Although defendant was given many opportunities to address her substance abuse problems, she repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of the treatment program and failed to appear in court even after a warrant was issued for her arrest. Moreover, she fully knew that the court could impose a term of imprisonment that it deemed proper in the event that she did not successfully complete the program, and the disposition of the driving while intoxicated charge was a separate matter and not part of the plea agreement. In view of the foregoing, among other things, the imposition of a consecutive sentence was entirely appropriate (see People v Reynoso, 11 AD3d 719, 720 [2004]), and we find no extraordinary circumstances nor [974]*974any abuse of discretion warranting a modification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Mason, 2 AD3d 1207, 1207 [2003]; People v Brooks, 283 AD2d 776, 776-777 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 916 [2001]).

Mercure, A.EJ., Peters, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 973, 937 N.Y.2d 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-griffin-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack