People v. Mojica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mojica

205 A.D.2d 645, 613 N.Y.S.2d 411

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

DecidedJune 13, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 645 (People v. Mojica) 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. Mojica, 205 A.D.2d 645, 613 N.Y.S.2d 411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), rendered August 3, 1993, 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 modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea.

As part of a plea agreement, the court improperly agreed to place the defendant on interim probation by postponing his sentence to allow him to enter a drug treatment program, and promising him that it would vacate his guilty plea if he successfully completed the program (see, People v Rodney E., 77 NY2d 672; People v Johnson, 197 AD2d 638; People v Rodriguez, 202 AD2d 698). Accordingly, the defendant must be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, 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 (Harkavy, J.), rendered August 3, 1993, 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 modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea.

As part of a plea agreement, the court improperly agreed to place the defendant on interim probation by postponing his sentence to allow him to enter a drug treatment program, and promising him that it would vacate his guilty plea if he successfully completed the program (see, People v Rodney E., 77 NY2d 672; People v Johnson, 197 AD2d 638; People v Rodriguez, 202 AD2d 698). Accordingly, the defendant must be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 645, 613 N.Y.S.2d 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mojica-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack