People v. Henry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Henry

29 A.D.3d 820, 815 N.Y.S.2d 209

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

DecidedMay 16, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 820 (People v. Henry) 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. Henry, 29 A.D.3d 820, 815 N.Y.S.2d 209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J), rendered May 12, 2004, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While on probation for two drug-related felonies, the defendant was arrested and indicted for selling heroin to an undercover officer within 1,000 feet of a school. He subsequently entered a plea of guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of the indictment. The court promised that if he successfully completed a DTAP program (Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison Program), the plea would be vacated and the indictment would be dismissed. The court warned, however, that if he failed to complete the program, he would face a sentence of 4V2 to 9 years’ imprisonment as a second felony offender. The defendant was fully allocuted and, upon his admission, was adjudicated a second felony offender. He was subsequently discharged from one residential drug treatment program for noncompliance, and left a second residential program without permission and against clinical advice. He was thereafter arrested for another drug sale. The court sentenced him to a term of 4V2 to 9 years’ imprisonment.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal from the sentence imposed was ineffective (see People v Brown, 13 AD3d 548 [2004]; People v Williams, 258 AD2d 544 [1999]; People v Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, however, the sentence was neither unconstitutional nor excessive (see People v Moore, 261 AD2d 421 [1999]; People v James, 251 AD2d 208 [1998]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, 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 (Ferdinand, J), rendered May 12, 2004, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While on probation for two drug-related felonies, the defendant was arrested and indicted for selling heroin to an undercover officer within 1,000 feet of a school. He subsequently entered a plea of guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of the indictment. The court promised that if he successfully completed a DTAP program (Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison Program), the plea would be vacated and the indictment would be dismissed. The court warned, however, that if he failed to complete the program, he would face a sentence of 4V2 to 9 years’ imprisonment as a second felony offender. The defendant was fully allocuted and, upon his admission, was adjudicated a second felony offender. He was subsequently discharged from one residential drug treatment program for noncompliance, and left a second residential program without permission and against clinical advice. He was thereafter arrested for another drug sale. The court sentenced him to a term of 4V2 to 9 years’ imprisonment.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal from the sentence imposed was ineffective (see People v Brown, 13 AD3d 548 [2004]; People v Williams, 258 AD2d 544 [1999]; People v Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, however, the sentence was neither unconstitutional nor excessive (see People v Moore, 261 AD2d 421 [1999]; People v James, 251 AD2d 208 [1998]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 820, 815 N.Y.S.2d 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-henry-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack