People v. Russell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Russell

41 A.D.2d 855, 342 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615

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

DecidedApril 30, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 855 (People v. Russell) 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. Russell, 41 A.D.2d 855, 342 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered December 16, 1971, convicting him of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term not to exceed three years. Judgment affirmed. Although no medical examination was conducted to determine whether defendant was a narcotic addict, in our opinion, under the circumstances herein, strict and literal compliance with sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law was unnecessary. As indicated by the probation report which was before the court at the time of sentencing, defendant had a long history of drug-related arrests and convictions. He had previously been certified to the custody of the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission pursuant to section 210 of the Mental Hygiene Law and had been released from that custody to aftercare only two weeks prior to his arrest on the instant charge. It is perfectly clear that there was a tacit understanding by all parties concerned during these proceedings that defendant was an addict. At the sentencing, defense counsel, in essence, requested that defendant be returned to the custody of the commission. The court, in so many words, responded that such a disposition had previously been unsuccessful and that the court therefore believed that a prison sentence was in order. Thus, the record amply demonstrates that defendant was addicted and that the sentencing court considered defendant’s request for treatment (People v. Carter, 31 N Y 2d 964; cf. People v. Maranez, 31 N Y 2d 828). We have considered and rejected defendant’s other contentions. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Gulotta and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered December 16, 1971, convicting him of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term not to exceed three years. Judgment affirmed. Although no medical examination was conducted to determine whether defendant was a narcotic addict, in our opinion, under the circumstances herein, strict and literal compliance with sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law was unnecessary. As indicated by the probation report which was before the court at the time of sentencing, defendant had a long history of drug-related arrests and convictions. He had previously been certified to the custody of the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission pursuant to section 210 of the Mental Hygiene Law and had been released from that custody to aftercare only two weeks prior to his arrest on the instant charge. It is perfectly clear that there was a tacit understanding by all parties concerned during these proceedings that defendant was an addict. At the sentencing, defense counsel, in essence, requested that defendant be returned to the custody of the commission. The court, in so many words, responded that such a disposition had previously been unsuccessful and that the court therefore believed that a prison sentence was in order. Thus, the record amply demonstrates that defendant was addicted and that the sentencing court considered defendant’s request for treatment (People v. Carter, 31 N Y 2d 964; cf. People v. Maranez, 31 N Y 2d 828). We have considered and rejected defendant’s other contentions. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Gulotta and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 855, 342 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-russell-nyappdiv-1973.