People v. Shade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shade

254 A.D.2d 438, 678 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11062

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 438 (People v. Shade) 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. Shade, 254 A.D.2d 438, 678 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), rendered October 28, 1996, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of six years to life imprisonment.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the defendant’s conviction to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

[439]*439The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The defendant, upon the advice of counsel, reaped the benefit of an extremely favorable plea agreement (see, People v Paterno, 141 AD2d 771).

The sentence imposed by the County Court was less than the minimum allowable under the terms of the Penal Law (see, Penal Law § 70.00 [3] [a] [i]; § 110.05 [1]; § 220.21). Under all the circumstances of this case, including the consent of the People, we conclude that the appropriate remedy is to give effect to the intent of the parties’ plea agreement by reducing the grade of the offense upon which the defendant’s conviction is based (see, Penal Law § 70.00 [3] [a] [ii]; § 220.18; People v Carter, 196 AD2d 633). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman 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 County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), rendered October 28, 1996, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of six years to life imprisonment.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the defendant’s conviction to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

[439]*439The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The defendant, upon the advice of counsel, reaped the benefit of an extremely favorable plea agreement (see, People v Paterno, 141 AD2d 771).

The sentence imposed by the County Court was less than the minimum allowable under the terms of the Penal Law (see, Penal Law § 70.00 [3] [a] [i]; § 110.05 [1]; § 220.21). Under all the circumstances of this case, including the consent of the People, we conclude that the appropriate remedy is to give effect to the intent of the parties’ plea agreement by reducing the grade of the offense upon which the defendant’s conviction is based (see, Penal Law § 70.00 [3] [a] [ii]; § 220.18; People v Carter, 196 AD2d 633). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 438, 678 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shade-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack