People v. Parra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Parra

276 A.D.2d 355, 714 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10596

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 355 (People v. Parra) 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. Parra, 276 A.D.2d 355, 714 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Su[356]*356preme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered December 3, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s arrest and conviction for a drug offense while he was in a drug treatment program violated the conditions of his plea agreement, of which defendant was fully aware. Accordingly, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to return to the program and in imposing the sentence that defendant had previously been told to expect if he failed to fulfill the agreement (see, People v Johnson, 254 AD2d 49). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Su[356]*356preme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered December 3, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s arrest and conviction for a drug offense while he was in a drug treatment program violated the conditions of his plea agreement, of which defendant was fully aware. Accordingly, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to return to the program and in imposing the sentence that defendant had previously been told to expect if he failed to fulfill the agreement (see, People v Johnson, 254 AD2d 49). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 355, 714 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parra-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack