People v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miller

80 A.D.3d 451, 913 N.Y.S.2d 558

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.3d 451 (People v. Miller) 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. Miller, 80 A.D.3d 451, 913 N.Y.S.2d 558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J., at plea; Ronald Zweibel, J., at sentence), rendered June 18, 2009, as amended July 8, 2009, convicting defendant of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The requirements of due process were satisfied when the sentencing court conducted a thorough inquiry into the facts with respect to whether defendant absconded from a drug treatment program in violation of his plea agreement, and provided defendant with a reasonable opportunity to present his explana[452]*452tions, which the court properly rejected (see People v Barnes, 72 AD3d 516 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 747 [2010]).

We also perceive no basis for reducing the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, McGuire, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J., at plea; Ronald Zweibel, J., at sentence), rendered June 18, 2009, as amended July 8, 2009, convicting defendant of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The requirements of due process were satisfied when the sentencing court conducted a thorough inquiry into the facts with respect to whether defendant absconded from a drug treatment program in violation of his plea agreement, and provided defendant with a reasonable opportunity to present his explana[452]*452tions, which the court properly rejected (see People v Barnes, 72 AD3d 516 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 747 [2010]).

We also perceive no basis for reducing the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, McGuire, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.3d 451, 913 N.Y.S.2d 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miller-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack