People v. Mitchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mitchell

124 A.D.3d 450, 997 N.Y.S.2d 902

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2015

Docket13940 125N/08

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 450 (People v. Mitchell) 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. Mitchell, 124 A.D.3d 450, 997 N.Y.S.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J., at plea; Ellen Coin, J., at dismissal motion and sentencing), rendered August 12, 2011, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing her to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the information in furtherance of justice. There is no “compelling factor” (CPL 210.40 [1]) that would warrant that “extraordinary remedy” (People v Moye, 302 AD2d 610, 611 [2d Dept 2003]). On the contrary, defendant failed to comply with her plea agreement as a result of her subsequent arrests, drug use relapses, and absences from mandated treatment. Moreover, there was evidence of her involvement in a fraudulent unemployment benefits scheme.

Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Acosta, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J., at plea; Ellen Coin, J., at dismissal motion and sentencing), rendered August 12, 2011, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing her to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the information in furtherance of justice. There is no “compelling factor” (CPL 210.40 [1]) that would warrant that “extraordinary remedy” (People v Moye, 302 AD2d 610, 611 [2d Dept 2003]). On the contrary, defendant failed to comply with her plea agreement as a result of her subsequent arrests, drug use relapses, and absences from mandated treatment. Moreover, there was evidence of her involvement in a fraudulent unemployment benefits scheme.

Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Acosta, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 450, 997 N.Y.S.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mitchell-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack