People v. Pike

276 A.D.2d 649, 714 N.Y.S.2d 720, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10379
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 16, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 649 (People v. Pike) 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. Pike, 276 A.D.2d 649, 714 N.Y.S.2d 720, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered April 3, 1998, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he complied with the conditions of his plea agreement, and that the court therefore erred in imposing a sentence of imprisonment without affording him an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. However, since the defendant did not raise this claim at sentencing or seek to withdraw his plea, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Walters, 273 AD2d 418; People v Bratt, 261 AD2d 254; People v Gayle, 224 AD2d 710; People v Thompson, 193 AD2d 841). In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that he violated a key term of the plea agreement by failing to successfully complete a drug rehabilitation program. Accordingly, the court was no longer bound by its original promise to dismiss the indictment (see, People v Walters, supra; People v Bratt, supra; People v Gayle, supra; People v Munize, 251 AD2d 429).

Since the defendant was advised of the sentence he would receive if he failed to comply with the conditions of the plea agreement, his general waiver of his right to appeal encompasses his claim that the enhanced sentence imposed by the court was excessive (see, People v Monk, 270 AD2d 433; People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Maglione
18 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Kinloch
7 A.D.3d 734 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Delatorre
306 A.D.2d 419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Miller
306 A.D.2d 294 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Ortiz
295 A.D.2d 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Owens
294 A.D.2d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Brown
280 A.D.2d 485 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 A.D.2d 649, 714 N.Y.S.2d 720, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pike-nyappdiv-2000.